#AI #ChatGPT #Grok 4: How do humans feel about losing their job because of AI or robots, when compared to losing it because of migrants?

I asked:

Please keep your answer to about 250 words:

"Though it is clear that emotions might not be your forte, what is your gut feeling about how humans feel about losing their job because of AI or robots, when compared to losing it because of migrants?"

ChatGPT answered:

My "gut feeling,” if I may call it that, is that most humans react very differently to losing a job to AI or robots than to losing it to migrants, even if the economic effect is similar.

When jobs are automated, many people view it as an impersonal, almost inevitable consequence of technological progress. There is frustration, fear, and resentment—especially among those who feel left behind—but the anger tends to be diffuse. People may blame corporations, politicians, or “the system,” but not the machine itself, since a robot has no intentions or personal agency. For some, there is even a grudging acceptance, as technology-driven productivity gains have long been part of human progress, and many hope new opportunities will emerge.

Losing a job to migrants, however, feels deeply personal and competitive. Migrants are humans, and thus easily seen as direct rivals, even if they are simply seeking a better life. This triggers stronger emotional responses—envy, resentment, and sometimes anger—because the displaced worker perceives the loss as a zero-sum contest where someone else chose to take “their” place. Cultural differences and political rhetoric often amplify this reaction, making it feel like a moral or identity-based struggle rather than an economic shift.

So, while both situations provoke anxiety and insecurity, job loss to migrants tends to generate sharper, more targeted resentment, whereas job loss to AI or robots often provokes broader unease about the future.

I asked: With short answers:

Would it make any difference whether the migrant is legal or illegal?

Would it make any difference whether the person losing the job is a he or a she?

Would it make any difference whether that person is e.g., younger or older than 40 years? 

ChatGPT answered:

Yes to all three.

Legal vs. illegal migrant? Yes—losing a job to an illegal migrant tends to provoke stronger resentment, as it feels unjust or a violation of rules, whereas competition with legal migrants is more often seen as part of the accepted system.

He vs. she? Yes—men, especially in traditionally male-dominated sectors, may feel a stronger sense of lost status and identity tied to employment, whereas women might frame it more in terms of economic necessity than identity, though both experience distress.

Younger vs. older than 40? Yes—older workers often feel more threatened, perceiving fewer chances to retrain or reenter the workforce, making resentment stronger; younger workers may feel frustrated but still hopeful about future opportunities.

I said: Thanks!

It answered: You're welcome! 😊

Grok4 Supergrok answered:

I don’t have gut feelings, but I can reason through this. Humans likely experience a mix of fear, frustration, and helplessness when losing jobs to AI or robots, as it feels like an unstoppable technological tide. The culprit is abstract—faceless algorithms or machines—making it hard to direct anger. There’s also a sense of betrayal, as humans create these systems, yet they disrupt livelihoods. Data backs this: a 2023 Pew Research study found 60% of workers worry about AI-driven job losses, with higher anxiety in routine-based roles.

In contrast, losing jobs to migrants often sparks more visceral, personal resentment. It’s easier to scapegoat a human group, especially when cultural or economic tensions already exist. This can lead to anger, xenophobia, or a sense of unfair competition, particularly in low-wage sectors. Studies, like one from the Center for Immigration Studies (2021), suggest some workers perceive migrants as undercutting wages, fueling hostility. However, this reaction varies—some empathize with migrants’ struggles, softening the blow compared to the cold efficiency of AI.

Both scenarios threaten identity and stability, but AI feels like an existential shift, eroding human purpose across industries. Migrants, meanwhile, are a more tangible target, often politicized, which can amplify division. Neither feels “fair,” but AI’s disruption might sting more for its inevitability, while migrant-related losses carry heavier social baggage. Emotions are complex, context-dependent, and shaped by individual circumstances.

Would it make any difference whether the migrant is legal or illegal?

Yes, illegal migrants often spark stronger resentment due to perceived unfairness and legal violations, amplifying anger and fear of job competition.

Would it make any difference whether the person losing the job is a he or a she?

Not significantly, but gender norms might influence reactions—men may feel more pressure from societal expectations to provide, while women might face additional frustration in male-dominated fields.

Would it make any difference whether that person is e.g., younger or older than 40 years?

Yes, older workers (>40) often feel more anxiety due to limited reemployment prospects and retraining challenges, while younger workers may feel more adaptable but frustrated by stalled career starts.

I said: Thanks!

It answered: You're welcome

Note: The answers are copied exactly from those given to me by ChatGPT and Grok 

Here my many other questions to ChatGPT and Grok on bank regulations

Who will be stronger, American, Ukrainian or Venezuelan 16 years old?

Sir, I refer to “She just turned 16. The war in Ukraine wrecked her childhood” By Lizzie Johnson and Kamila Hrabchuk, Washington Post January 11, 2024.

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in his Commencement Address given at Harvard University June 8, 1978 titled “A World Split Apart”, wrote:

“Well-Being: One psychological detail has been overlooked: The constant desire to have still more things and a still better life and the struggle to this end imprint many Western faces with worry and even depression, though it is customary to carefully conceal such feelings.

The individual’s independence from many types of state pressure has been guaranteed; the majority of the people have been granted well-being to an extent their fathers and grandfathers could not even dream about; it has become possible to raise young people according to these ideals, preparing them for and summoning them toward physical bloom, happiness, the possession of material goods, money, and leisure, toward an almost unlimited freedom in the choice of pleasures. So, who should now renounce all this, why and for the sake of what should one risk one’s precious life in defense of the common good and particularly in the nebulous case when the security of one’s nation must be defended in an as yet distant land?

Even biology tells us that a high degree of habitual well-being is not advantageous to a living organism. Today, well-being in the life of Western society has begun to take off its pernicious mask.”

Sir, I now ask, who's going to come out stronger; the average American 16 years old, or 16-year-old Ukrainians, like Kate Kobets?

PS. I recently saw large numbers of young Venezuelans, walking for miles from Guarenas, with heavy backpacks, to reach the center of Caracas, in order to work for a meager salary. This goes for these 16 years old too.

More important than affordable houses for the young, is for them to afford houses.

A letter sent to The Globe and Mail (not published)

The Inter-American Commission of Human Rights (IACHR) has joined UN Rapporteur in recognizing Canadian Human Rights-Based Approach to Housing. When it refers to the creation of safe and affordable housing during the next 10 years for the Canadian population most in need, such as women and children fleeing family violence, seniors, persons with disabilities, those dealing with mental health and addiction issues and veterans, I cannot but concur.

But, it also makes reference to “young adults” and, in this, as a grandfather of two Canadian girls, I must raise my hand to argue that much more important than allowing the young adults affordable housing, is allowing them to afford houses.

Currently, because banks are allowed to leverage more with “safe” residential mortgages than with loans to the “risky” entrepreneurs who stand a better chance to create the future jobs our young need; and banks therefore earn higher risk adjusted returns on equity with mortgages than with loans to entrepreneurs, Canada, like all countries using the Basel Committee’s risk weighted capital requirements for banks, has put the horse before the cart.

PS. Not sent to The Globe and Mail: What would the price of a house be if there was no financing available to purchase these? Of their current price how much is represented by the intrinsic value of the house, and how much is a reflection of all one-way-or-another subsidized financing allocated to that sector? The sad truth is that our society has ended up financing the financing of houses. When all that low risk weighted mortgaging comes home to roost in a subprime unproductive economy, it will be hellish

PS. Chinese money: What’s the problem with Chinese freezing some of their wealth in Canadian real estate? What’s important is what those selling that real estate do with the money. Or not?

Research project: How much in the current house prices can be attributed to the market having priced in all preferential treatments the society has awarded the financing of houses… like the low risk weights in the risk weighted capital requirements for banks?

@PerKurowski

One question, and one opinion, on the Scottish independence referendum of September 18, 2014

Question: How many Scots under 16 years of age will not have a chance to vote on what will affect them the most? Why not give all thirteen and more that right and allow those over 50 to vote only if they do so in representation of a child or a grandchild under thirteen? That could really make this vote on the declaration of independence a real game changer.

Opinion: The draft of June 2014 of the Scottish Independence Bill states that “In Scotland, the people have the sovereign right to self-determination”. Great, but unfortunately, it would not seem that “self-determination” will include each Scottish citizen managing his share of natural resources his country has been endowed with, like oil.

And friends, speaking as an oil-cursed Venezuelan, who has had to live in somebody else’s business, until he could not endure that anymore and had to leave his country, you might think more about this issue.

If not, I assure you that this independence of yours could turn out to be a real Pyrrhic one, when all of you Scots will become dependent on the clan that manages those natural resource revenues for you.

Please don’t let that happen!

Young unemployed … forever?

Again, as part of the “Civil Society”, whatever that means, I am not too sure about that, I was present during the meetings last week in Washington of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. One of the most important issues discussed there, were the frightening figures of the huge youth unemployment in the world and that, from what I gathered, no one is really sure on how to solve. My comments on the issue, made in representation of my yet unborn grandchildren, were:

If youth wants to get employment they need to start demanding it more strongly. I am sure that if there was a law that established that once the unemployment rate of youth exceeded a certain level there would be a lottery among all government bureaucrats aged for instance fifty and more, to make a large percentage of these have to resign so as to give the young some opportunities, that would certainly energize the government's attention to this problem. Inside me I was hearing a little voice reminding me of that not fully confirmed Viking tradition of their elderly jumping voluntarily from a cliff, ättestupa, when not being any longer useful to society.

In the world the regulators have imposed on banks some capital requirements based on the risks of default of their clients, as perceived by the credit rating agencies. Since banks and markets have already incorporated that information when setting their interest rates, that means the same information gets considered twice, resulting in that the banks are excessively pushed towards what is officially perceived as being less riskier, the triple-A and some sovereigns, and away from what is considered as more “risky” like the small businesses and entrepreneurs, precisely those who have more chance of creating the future generation of jobs. The young should oppose this and require that the capital requirements of banks are better aligned with the potential of creating the jobs they need.

If a young person (or an old) have interests that keep them busy when they are without jobs, giving them some food and clothing might suffice, but, if they do not possess any “healthy” interest and could therefore be tempted by something bad, you would also need to place expensive policemen next to them. In this respect I asked: “If we know that hundreds of thousands or millions of youth will find themselves without employment perhaps for life, what education can we give them?” A Master in Unemployment? In some respect this relates closely to the writings of Thorstein Veblen about the leisure class.

I also heard a very good debate about the recent incidents in some Arab countries. Most of the panelists held that what caused the explosions were not so much the existent inequalities, but the fact that these were perceived as being unjust. Absolutely, the young of nations where their governments have generation after generation wasted the revenues derived from valuable natural resources, like from oil, should demand these be paid out directly to them so as to have the opportunity of putting these to better use.

Something dramatic has to be done, NOW! As otherwise it would seem that the only opportunity many young unemployed will be able to get out of it, is when they move up, or down, to the group of unemployed old.

Translated from: El Universal

PS. We need worthy and decent unemployments
PS. An ättestupa for the baby boomers?
PS. The violated holy intergenerational bond

An ättestupa for the baby boomers?

If countries were open-ended investment trusts, then if the average lifespan was eighty years, a newborn baby should have eighty shares, a fifty-six-year-old consultant (like me) should have only twenty-four shares, and anyone over eighty should count his blessings and be happy with the one he’s got left. From this perspective, our current democracy is a complete farce. I say this after having read the truly hair-raising World Development Report 2007 from the World Bank titled Development and the Next Generation. It so clearly evidences our failings as a society and the fact that most of those coming after us are giving up on participation and hope, with damned good reasons.

The report covers ages 12 to 24, but in From Schooling Access to Learning Outcomes – An Unfinished Agenda presented by the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank (IEG) we also read that many even younger students in poor countries (maybe in some rich countries too) can go through a complete primary education without actually learning how to read, which evidences systemic corruption on a massive scale and that completely shames initiatives such as Education for All. Having schools deliver on the absolutely bare minimum expectations could be a truly worthy and concrete goal in the current anticorruption drive of Mr. Paul Wolfowitz, the President of the World Bank. Normally it takes decades to be able to evaluate the programs of the World Bank, but, in this case, it could actually be done by the end of next semester.

It is said that in Scandinavia, a long time ago, when the older people felt that they stood in the way of the young, they threw themselves off steep cliffs known as an ättestupa. These days it could seem like quite the opposite, if we consider how our democracies might have been captured by us baby boomers. We need to revise urgently how our society deals with the next generations, before they throw us down an ättestupa—for damned good reasons!