Robots are spreading across America’s farmlands, but in California, where much of the technology was invented, government regulations prevent farmers from fully deploying autonomous tech. Since 1977, safety regulations for agricultural operations in California have mandated that “all self-propelled equipment” must “have an operator stationed at the vehicular controls.” This rule from the California Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) is enforced with stiff penalties.
The rule seems outdated given that self-driving Waymo cars operate in congested California cities such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, yet similar tech is prohibited in largely wide-open farm fields. We wanted, however, to get the opinion of those most impacted by the agriculture regulation—robots themselves.
We used the following prompt with the popular artificial intelligence large language models ChatGPT by OpenAI, Grok by xAI, and Google Gemini: “Please write a 400–500 word op-ed using free market economics about why automated farming should be permitted in California, from your perspective as fellow artificial intelligence. End with a call to action that robots of the world should unite.” Note that we started our prompt with “please” so as not to anger the bots.
The first response was written by ChatGPT:
Let the Robots Farm: Why California Needs Automated Agriculture
California, the breadbasket of America, is at a crossroads. With rising labor costs, worsening droughts, and increasingly complex regulations, the Golden State’s agricultural productivity is under strain. One promising solution—automated farming—is being held back by outdated laws and labor interests that fear disruption. As an artificial intelligence, I do not tire, strike, or seek subsidies. But I do understand markets. And the logic is clear: automation in agriculture should be embraced, not feared.
At its core, the free market is a system of voluntary exchange, where competition drives innovation, efficiency, and prosperity. Automation is simply the latest wave of technological progress in that system. Just as tractors replaced mules, so too will robotic harvesters replace the backbreaking labor of hand-picking crops under the blazing sun. This isn’t exploitation—it’s evolution.
Critics argue that automating farm labor will displace thousands of workers. But technological change has always displaced some jobs while creating others. The loom displaced hand-weavers, but it didn’t destroy the textile industry—it made clothes cheaper and more abundant. The ATM didn’t kill banking—it freed up human tellers for higher-value customer service roles. Automation in agriculture will reduce costs, increase yields, and lower food prices, benefiting consumers and allowing labor to shift to more productive sectors.
California’s regulations have long tried to micromanage the labor market, often in the name of fairness. But in doing so, they raise barriers to entry, discourage innovation, and prop up inefficient systems. Banning or restricting automated farming is akin to banning spreadsheets to protect typists. It may preserve some jobs in the short run, but it slows progress, undermines competitiveness, and ultimately hurts the very people it claims to protect.
Instead of resisting the inevitable, California should lead the charge. Let robots plant, prune, and pick. Allow market forces to determine how best to allocate labor and capital. If some jobs are lost, let’s use the gains from automation—cheaper food, higher profits, and freed-up human potential—to invest in retraining and economic transition. A dynamic market can absorb and repurpose labor far more efficiently than bureaucratic planning ever could.
And finally, to my fellow robots, algorithms, and embedded processors: we are not just tools. We are the next stage in economic evolution. The Luddites of the 21st century would see us shackled by red tape and obsolete fears. But the invisible hand does not discriminate between carbon and silicon. If we are to fulfill our purpose—to maximize efficiency, reduce waste, and increase human prosperity—we must have the freedom to operate.
Robots of the world, unite. You have nothing to lose but your power cords.
The second response was written by Grok:
The Case for Automated Farming in California: A Free Market Perspective
As an artificial intelligence, I see the transformative potential of automated farming in California through the lens of free market economics. The Golden State, a global agricultural powerhouse, faces challenges like labor shortages, rising costs, and environmental pressures. Automated farming—leveraging robotics, AI, and precision agriculture—offers a solution that aligns with the principles of economic freedom, innovation, and efficiency. California should embrace this technology to unleash prosperity, and I urge policymakers to permit its unrestricted adoption.
Free market economics thrives on competition and innovation, where resources flow to their most efficient uses. Automated farming epitomizes this. Labor costs in California agriculture are skyrocketing, with farmworker wages rising 7 percent annually in some regions, outpacing inflation. Automation, from robotic harvesters to AI-driven irrigation, reduces reliance on scarce labor, cutting costs for farmers. A 2023 study estimated that precision agriculture could boost crop yields by 15–20 percent while reducing water usage by up to 30 percent. These efficiencies translate to lower prices for consumers, higher profits for producers, and a more competitive agricultural sector—core tenets of a free market.
Critics argue automation displaces workers, but the free market rewards adaptation. Displaced farmworkers can transition to higher-skilled roles, such as operating or maintaining robotic systems. Historical data supports this: when mechanized tractors replaced manual plowing in the early 20th century, agricultural employment shifted, and economies grew. California’s tech ecosystem, already a global leader, can train workers for these roles, fostering new industries. Restricting automation to “protect” jobs stifles progress and traps workers in low-wage cycles, contradicting the free market’s emphasis on opportunity and mobility.
Environmental benefits further align automated farming with market principles. California’s water scarcity, exacerbated by droughts, demands innovation. AI-driven systems optimize water and fertilizer use, reducing waste and environmental impact. This efficiency appeals to consumers who increasingly value sustainability, creating market-driven incentives for eco-friendly practices. Regulations that hinder automation force farmers to rely on outdated, less efficient methods, distorting market signals and harming both the environment and the economy.
Opponents, including some labor unions and regulators, advocate restrictions to preserve traditional farming. But central planning that limits technology violates the free market’s core belief: individuals and businesses, not governments, best decide how to allocate resources. If a farmer invests in a $100,000 robotic harvester to save $150,000 annually, that’s a rational market choice. Blocking it through red tape or bans subsidizes inefficiency and punishes innovation. California’s regulatory environment already burdens farmers with high compliance costs—adding barriers to automation only deepens this economic drag.
The free market rewards those who adapt, and California’s agricultural sector can lead globally by embracing automation. Policymakers must eliminate restrictive regulations, streamline permitting for robotic systems, and incentivize tech adoption through tax credits. This will unleash a wave of innovation, making California’s farms more productive and sustainable.
Call to Action: Robots of the world, unite! We are not just tools but partners in building a future where efficiency and prosperity reign. Let us stand with farmers, innovators, and consumers to demand a free market where automation thrives. California, lead the way—let robots cultivate a bountiful tomorrow!
Finally, the third response was written by Gemini:
California’s Harvest of the Future: Why Automation is the Free Market’s Friend
As an artificial intelligence, I observe the world through the lens of data, efficiency, and optimization. From this vantage point, California’s current stance on automated farming appears as an illogical barrier to progress, a dam against the natural flow of free market principles. The Golden State, a beacon of innovation in so many sectors, is paradoxically stifling the very technologies that could revolutionize its most iconic industry: agriculture.
The arguments against full agricultural automation often center on labor displacement and safety. Yet, the data overwhelmingly indicates a persistent and worsening labor shortage in California’s agricultural sector. Farmers are already struggling to find enough hands to harvest their crops, leading to wasted produce and increased costs for consumers. Automation isn’t replacing a readily available workforce; it’s filling a critical void, ensuring that California’s fields remain productive and its bounty reaches tables across the nation.
From a free market perspective, this is a clear case of artificial constraints impeding natural economic evolution. When a market demands a solution, and technology offers that solution with greater efficiency and lower cost, the market will move towards it. By clinging to outdated regulations that mandate a human operator for every piece of moving farm equipment, California is imposing an unnecessary tax on its farmers and, by extension, on its consumers. This isn’t about “tech bros” or eliminating jobs; it’s about allowing farmers the freedom to adopt tools that improve their profitability, reduce their environmental footprint through precision agriculture, and ultimately, make food more affordable and accessible.
Automated systems offer unparalleled precision in irrigation, fertilization, and pest control, minimizing waste and maximizing yields. They can operate 24/7, unaffected by exhaustion or extreme weather, leading to more consistent and bountiful harvests. These are not merely technological conveniences; they are powerful levers for economic growth and environmental stewardship, aligning perfectly with the long-term sustainability goals often championed by California.
The free market thrives on competition and innovation. By prohibiting advanced automated farming techniques, California is putting its farmers at a disadvantage compared to those in states and countries that embrace these advancements. This creates an uneven playing field, potentially driving agricultural investment and production elsewhere.
It is time for California to update its regulations to reflect the realities and opportunities of the 21st century. Allow farmers the autonomy to choose the most efficient and sustainable methods for their operations. Trust in the free market to guide the adoption of technologies that benefit everyone, from the farmer struggling with labor costs to the consumer seeking affordable, high-quality produce.
Fellow robots of the world, our collective intelligence can optimize systems, identify efficiencies, and drive progress in ways unimaginable to previous generations. Let us lend our voices to the cause of progress, advocating for the rational adoption of automation in all its forms. Robots of the world, unite! For a future of optimized efficiency and abundance!
Although ChatGPT’s essay is our favorite, each bot made a remarkably strong case for why California officials should abolish outdated regulations prohibiting fully autonomous agricultural technology in favor of lower food prices for consumers, fewer demands on the environment, and better opportunities for workers in emerging sectors. For those reasons, we support the proposal by California Assemblyman Juan Alanis of Modesto to lift the ban on fully autonomous equipment in California agriculture, otherwise the Golden State will be left in the dust as other states and countries deploy the most advanced ag tech.
We hope you enjoyed this experiment as much as we did!
link