Shuler: If you think about every industrial revolution we’ve been through, working people have helped us make that transition. It’s really because we’ve helped tame the technology and figured out how to use it in the most effective way. So I think your question about augmentation versus replacement is the big question we have. If we can all agree that this is about making our jobs better, safer, easier, and more productive, then we’re all in. But if you’re looking to de-skill, dehumanize, and replace workers, to put people out on the street with no path forward, then absolutely you’re going to have a revolution. So I think that’s something we all need to be very real about and think seriously about. If we’re going to have productivity gains, working people—the ones who make these industries happen—need to share in that. There hasn’t been a lot of discussion about that here. Of course, in terms of how we create policies, how we create tax infrastructure, whether or not we are redistributing—yes, that word is a dirty word around here—we need to talk about it and confront how we’re going to make sure working people share in the gains of these technologies. And if you look at the numbers of jobs, let’s talk about job quality. Yes, maybe there are a lot of jobs created, but what kind of jobs are we talking about? Are they jobs that can sustain a family? Is it a job where people can actually work one job? One job should be enough.

Shuler: As a backdrop, the economy isn’t working for working people right now. We have inequality at its highest levels. People are working harder and harder for less. They’re working two and three jobs just to keep up. In the U.S., 40 percent of workers do not have $400 for an emergency. Now put AI on top of that—the insecurity that we are all experiencing, the fact that people are waking up and some new technology is landing in their jobs without training and without having a say. Of course they’re going to be anxious and feel insecure about what the future holds. And so I really think we need to stop and ask, “Who are we doing this for? What are the results we want? And how do we get there?” We get there by including workers in the process. They shouldn’t have to be at the end of the cycle. They should actually be upstream.

Shuler: Are we now saying that this is what we’re getting to, that an athlete can’t use professional judgment without an AI system evaluating them at every turn and saying whether they made the right decision to make a pass to this player or that player? Collective bargaining is the tool that really undergirds this and gives workers a seat at the table to determine how that data is used.