I feel like a lot of people aren't fully examining what AGI would mean for labor. As of right now labor exists separate from capital, which is to say the economy is made of workers, stuff and money. Workers get stuff, put labor into it and turn it into more valuable stuff, capital owns that stuff so they sell it to other workers (usually) and give their workers some portion of the increase in value. AGI would mean that capital is labor. The stuff can go get more stuff and refine it. Capital won't make stuff to sell, they'll just make stuff they want and stuff to go get and make stuff they want. It will, of course, be wildly bad for political stability but I feel like a lot of people think they've found some sort of catch 182 in AGI when labor has no money to buy stuff. They think "That'll shut the whole economy down" but what would really happen is instead of building a machine that makes boots, hiring someone to run it, selling boots and using the money to buy a yacht they'll just build a machine that makes yachts and another machine that kills anyone who interferes with the yacht machine. An economy made of workers, stuff and money will become an economy just made of stuff, as workers will be replaced by stuff and money was only ever useful as a way to induce people to work.

They basically want to be like the spacers in Asimov's robots novels: a handful of supremely wealthy people living in vast domains where every single one of their needs and wants are provided by machines. There is literally no lower (human) class in this society.

This is what's making me laugh a bit about Ford's brazen "we're firing all the white-collar workers" nonsense. Ok, go for it. Who are you going to get to buy a $80,000 F-150?