alt Hacker NewsYou're directionally right, anyway. There's no reason significantly advanced AI (likely to not be developed from LLMs but from some other path) can't completely replace a wide variety of human labor. But replacing human labor with machinery (i.e., capital) is not new, it's been going on for a couple centuries plus some. The thing that happens when you replace wage labor with capital is that the rate of profit (i.e., the ratio of profit to the amount of invested capital) tends to fall, which is a systemic threat to investment. The recurring tech and asset bubbles since the 1990s have each been inflated in an attempt to maintain rising levels of investment in the face of rising productivity and therefore falling profit. An economy of dark factories isn't useful under capitalism, because it produces goods which end up having no sale-value.
The Musk-esque theory is that robots can do all the drudgery for free, while the economy centers on humans being creative, which in this trope looks like an Elysium with singing and dancing and poetry and painting, and maybe togas.
The core argument is that people don't want to be machines, and shouldn't do mechanical work, and that it's a shame if anybody feels compelled to work like a machine to survive. But then we have the job loss part, in which, because of automation, that person doesn't even have the option of working like a machine, and complains about it.
However, I'm coming round to thinking that the vision of a continual symposium-party is wrong anyway. I think automation can't do all that much, and creativity is needed in even the most mundane and dreary contexts. This means automation is less disruptive that it's purported to be - but is still somewhat disruptive - and the change in the nature of jobs is less of a shift to creativity - but is still a small shift to creativity. The jobs aren't delightful, people are still needed in factories, and there are no togas involved. This is my dreary insight.