[crazylogger]

I wouldn’t worry about job safety when we have such utopian vision as the elimination of all human labor in our sight.

Not only will AI run the company, it will run the world. Remember: a product/service only costs money because somewhere down the assembly line or in some office, there are human workers who need to feed their family. If AI can help gradually reduce human involvement to 0, with good market competition (AI can help with this too - if AI can be capable CEOs, starting your business will be insanely easy,) and we’ll get near absolute abundance. Then humanity will be basically printing any product & service on demand at 0 cost like how we print money today.

I wouldn’t even worry about unequal distribution of wealth, because with absolute abundance, any piece of the pie is an infinitely large pie. Still think the world isn’t perfect in that future? Just one prompt, and the robot army will do whatever it takes to fix it for you.

[bayindirh]

Pump Six and The Machine Stops are the two stories you should read. They are short, to the point and more importantly, far more plausible.

[withinboredom]

I'd order ∞ paperclips, first thing.

[someguyorother]

Sure thing, here's your neural VR interface and extremely high fidelity artificial world with as many paperclips as you want. It even has a hyperbolic space mode if you think there are too few paperclips in your field of view.

[Krssst]

> elimination of all human labor.

Manual labor would still be there. Hardware is way harder than software, AGI seems easier to realize than mass worldwide automation of minute tasks that currently require human hands.

AGI would force back knowledge workers to factories.

[crazylogger]

My view is AGI will dramatically reduce cost of R&D in general, then developing humanoid robot will be an easy task - since it's all AI systems who will be doing the development.

[ashirviskas]

If AGI/ASI can figure out self-replicating nano-machines, they only need to build one.

[wwweston]

Past industrial and other productivity jumps have had their fruits distributed unevenly. Why will this be different?

Most technology is a magnifier.

[crazylogger]

Yes, number-wise the wealth gap between the top and median is bigger than ever, but the actual quality-of-life difference has never been smaller — Elon and I probably both use an iPhone, wear similar T-shirts, mostly eat the same kind of food, get our information & entertainment from Google/ChatGPT/Youtube/X.

I fully expect the distribution to be even more extreme in an ultra-productive AI future, yet nonetheless, the bottom 50% would have their every need met in the same manner that Elon has his. If you ever want anything or have something more ambitious in mind, say, start a company to build something no one’s thought of — you’d just call a robot to do it. And because the robots are themselves developed and maintained by an all-robot company, it costs nobody anything to provide this AGI robot service to everyone.

A Google-like information query would have been unimaginably costly to execute a hundred years ago, and here we are, it’s totally free because running Google is so automated. Rich people don't even get a better Google just because they are willing to pay - everybody gets the best stuff when the best stuff costs 0 anyway.

[wombatpm]

With an AI workforce you can eliminate the need for a human workforce and share the wealth or you can eliminate the human workforce and not share.

[crazylogger]

AI services are widely available, and humans have agency. If my boss can outsource everything to AI and run a one-person company, soon everyone will be running their own one-person companies to compete. If OpenAI refuses to sell me AI, I’ll turn to Anthropic, DeepSeek, etc.

AI is raising individual capability to a level that once required a full team. I believe it’s fundamentally a democratizing force rather than monopolizing. Everybody will try and get the most value out of AI, nobody holds the power to decide whether to share or not.

[ethbr1]

The danger point is when there is abundance for a limited number of people, but not yet enough for everyone.

[aldanor]

... and eventually the humankind goes extinct due to mass obesity

[Bud]

There's at least as much reason to believe the opposite. Much of today's obesity has been created by desk jobs and food deserts. Both of those things could be reversed.