If you're going to create a robot workforce to create everything you need for you, then you can also create a robot army to take everyone else's stuff.

"His first objection: if AI can truly do everything, then everyone can have everything they need, making the question of who owns the robots somewhat moot."

Ah, of course. Because a wealthy society is automatically an egalitarian society; as anyone who takes a quick look outside can clearly see.

If anything, the threat of utopian abundance rendering wealth nigh-irrelevant will probably encourage people who wish to retain the feeling of being wealth to double down, since the only way to know that you are ahead will be the option to look down on the huddled masses being kept in line by securibots.

Any UBI future will have to have birth control restrictions otherwise having babies becomes a profit motive in itself.

We see this in Canada where african immigrants, in particular, have babies to collect social assistance.

Don't vote me down, this is a fact.

Any predictions of a workless wealth re-distribution future collide directly with nearly all religions on the birth control issue.

Discuss.

"agricultural employment in the U.S., which dropped from 81% in 1810 to 1% today, as evidence that humans consistently create new valuable work after technological displacement", What does agricultural employment have to do with AI? Why would you expect one to have the same characteristics as the other. He's not filling that gap with any argument either in the blurb or the article that I can see.

I think he's not being honest with himself. He cherry picked one example. He would have to argue why his one example is representative of the rest.

> His first objection: if AI can truly do everything, then everyone can have everything they need, making the question of who owns the robots somewhat moot. His second: a world where AI is capable enough to replace all human labor yet still obeys human property law seems implausible.

We already produce far more than we need for everyone to have food, clothes, and shelter, yet we still have people starving, dying of exposure, and homeless. That makes it obvious that this clown is an idiot.

"even in a world where AI can perform all human jobs, people will still prefer human-created content and human connection."

Who is going to buy your shit if no one has a job?

AI just buying and selling to each other while humanity starts again?

None of our models, either LLMs or image diffusion, anywhere near approaches the idea of being able to do the most trivial real tasks for people. They are over-glorified predictive word generators or image curve fitness algorithms. They can be impressive, sure. But they're also "wrong" constantly, because they have no concept of reasoning or thinking. I keep hearing people like Jensen Huang use those words and he's either a marketing genius or an idiot who has no fucking idea how any of his company's products actually work.

But in regards to people wanting real things, yes of course they do. AI generated anime girls might be fun to goon to, but a good quarter of them will come out looking like man-made horrors. And most people can still tell they're AI generated. Those hands are in the wrong place, the staff comes out in a differ place on the other side of that character's body, they're super shiny (the algorithms are trying to move from total random noise to an image, that's why they looks so over-corrected/shiny), etc.

A lot of YouToobers have made a point of saying, "Our animation is hand made; not AI." MKBHD even showed the wireframe and said "this was made in a lot of blender" in his recent video where he shrinks down to the size of a modern semiconductor.

The best use of it might be to generate the models, but then pull them into Maya or Blender and still do all the animation for real. I have a feeling that's what a lot of people will end up doing. It's not going to fully replace workflows in animation ... and it's certainly not going to "think" or take our jobs. If anything, we'll see a massive rehiring of engineers who have to prove their abilities without AI, in order to fix the absolute mountains of technical debt we've accumulated from the LLM slop code.

but wont because if I own the machine hey its mine and you get what I give you and you cant make your own because I own the rights!

> He argues that human preferences for human connection -- from podcasting audiences to romantic partners -- will sustain an economy for human labor simply because it is human.

It's outright funny how precisely this coincides with the story from yesterday:

[1]Influencers and OnlyFans Models Dominate US 'Extraordinary' Artist Visas [slashdot.org]

[1] https://tech.slashdot.org/story/26/01/05/166232/influencers-and-onlyfans-models-dominate-us-extraordinary-artist-visas

Prostitution it is then.

You won't be able to compete with companies cranking out AI slop. They'll just run you out of business. If that doesn't work they will buy you.

Consumers increasingly won't have jobs so we're not going to be able to afford fancy high-end human created stuff.

The problem with AI is that it's going to fundamentally break down the underpinnings of our entire economy. We are automating faster than we can adapt to. Seriously sit down and try the list out the jobs that are going to replace the ones being a

And then funnel profits to social programs. A number of countries have done this to help their citizens.

> His first objection: if AI can truly do everything, then everyone can have everything they need, making the question of who owns the robots somewhat moot.

What kind of brain-dead reasoning is this? The question of who owns the robots is directly correlated to who will profit by providing services to others. The more necessary the product, the larger the profit margins will become. Big oil, anyone?