One issue with historical comparisons is that a pool of labor (such as child labor) were freed to transition to some other workforce. If AI hyperscales to a point of generally out-competing human work forces, then we have nowhere else to go but the dwindling havens where AI and automation cannot touch for now. If we live in post-scarcity equitable society–and we assume human society can cope without a struggle or purpose– this is great. If we don’t, this is an unmitigated disaster.

I think the author assumed things will be spread fairly across the board. I don't think wealth gain will be evenly distributed. The other issue I have with the article is that the author assumed unlimited resource to build the robots. Resources will be limited. Building those robots won't be a nice green field either. I think there will be a lot of dirty waste by products that will be a major health concern for the human.

> The answer lies in recognizing that wages are just one source of income. People also earn income from investments....

I already can see the slant that, this whole article is going to be about. Capital holders are going to be the only people matter. Everyone else is trivial. i.e. the top 5% who hold 80% of all wealth in the world.

>Consider Qatar as a point of comparison. Migrant workers make up roughly 94% of the country’s workforce, yet only Qatari citizens, who make up the remaining 6%, are eligible to receive most government welfare benefits.

My father was one among those 94%. Stayed away from my family for more than a decade, only visiting us for 2 months every 2 years. Leaving with tears in his eyes every time. Qatar shouldn't be a point of comparison for capitalism. With no way for naturalization, a strong monarchy, and Labor oppression. I think it's the opposite of free trade capitalism as preached by the west.

What I got from this article was. More money for me, and none for the peasants, but that's okay because they or their work don't matter anyway.

We already know what happens when a minority gains massive riches over the rest and also has the ability to gate keep said riches. Its called nations, and thats why an entire people will starve in an impoverished Somalia while another will revel in excess in Switzerland. Look no further than nations to see what the effect of life after work is.

> It’s natural to feel anxious as we approach the inevitable automation of all human labor.

These are absolute assertions about the near future absent any rationale or reason whatsoever that contradict the minimal evidence that actually exists.

Is this the pinnacle of AI hype? Time will tell.

Who will take the coal from the mine? Who will take the salt from the earth? Who'll take a leaf and grow it to a tree? Don't look now, it ain't you or me

Bottom of article: “we’re hiring”

Selling a job by saying that soon we won’t need to work.. I think some connections were missed..

There is a very stark discrepancy here. In online spheres Utopianism rises as a popular idea, describing a near future of complete abundance. At the same, in reality, people around me are noticably worse off, they can afford less, products and services degrade in quality and social bonds are deteriorating.

I can only believe that the former is a psychological reaction to the later.

As much as I agree with the premise of liberation from toil, I don't think the author presents a compelling argument as to how you get from "most of the capital sits in the hands of a small group of oligarchs" today to "the fruits of AI productivity are broadly shared". Historically, capital-heavy innovations have made a small group of people very rich. I have zero doubt without very decisive action, the default is absolutely a "whoever has capital at time of singularity has capital forever".

His argument of GDP gains being distributed somewhat equitably relies on the assumption that healthy democracies continue to exist, and that those democracies are structured in such a way that would allow for the distribution of those GDP gains.

Aside from the ability to cast a ballot, the only other power that normal people have in our political economy is the ability to withdraw their labour. If AI replaces all labour, that already vanishing power completely disappears.

I could see countries like Norway having strong enough institutions to ensure that the benefits get shared in a reasonable way.

In places like the US or Russia, I have a difficult time imagining anything other than the creation of a dozen trillionaires. The US can't even agree on basic universal healthcare. Do you think that President Vance or Newsom are going to divert profits from Google and OpenAI to give to normal people?

A far more likely scenario would be the growth of a permanent underclass. Silicon valley would rather see 150 million people living in tents than agree to a higher rate of taxation.