bemtevi

I don't know if the OP is opposed - maybe they just want an explanation? I mean saying something is ironic isn't really a harsh insult or a bash.

I agree mostly, but people won't necessarily have to buy stuff in the future. If the rich can operate an autonomous supply chain from raw materials extraction to manufacture with AI and robots, then they don't even need the economy to function. They can just bypass a people-working economy altogether.

I don't understand this perspective. Not all change is analogous to previous change. For instance, human beings invented the automatic rifle, but we never even thought of implementing a global non-profileration treaty like we tried with nuclear weapons.

AI could possibly throw the world into a great chaos. We've seen financial collapses before like the great depression. Who's to say that something even more disastrous couldn't happen with a tool that's unlike one we've ever seen before that can replace labor a lot faster than any tool we've ever seen before?

Tools are never just tools: they also influence the change of society to a great extent and societies have breaking points. Sales, management, and maintenance could eventually be automated also.

Lots of people would have sworn a decade ago that creative mathematical thinking was outside the domain of a machine. Now look what's happened.

I think that's a pretty odd framing, because the upsides are pretty relative and lopsided to those receiving certain benefits. The people who are anti-AI often are those who can acknowledge that AI does cool stuff, but that it's not worth it and doesn't provide any real benefit except by helping people keep up in a frenetic arms race to develop new tech.

Personally, I'm against AI but even if it could never be smarter than us and if it were at the state that it was last year, I'd still be against it due to the environmental cost.