They won’t. AI can’t be used for anything remotely important because it is only superhuman at being broadly applicable or fast and terrible, but crap compared to any narrowly applied human intelligence. It’s already brutally expensive to train, has nowhere near enough new data to add to the training sets to see any improvement, and is about to get way, way more expensive for the users.

Now, if you want to imagine a fake world where we have achieved cheap AGI, expect violence. A cheap AGI would eliminate jobs as fast as robots could be built. In any society where the unemployment rate gets high enough without a sufficient social safety net, which those who own the robots would have to be taxed for, people get desperate, and desperate people with no work to eat up their time and energy get active, and eventually violent.

On top of that who’s gonna keep creating the real data necessary to keep training the AI models if no one can profit from their work anymore.

It’s an ouroborous situation.

That is a problem for the next quarter’s CEO to deal with

Joe doesn’t have any more money to spend on video games
Companies have no more profit, because people don’t have income, so people can’t spend on their AI produced products

Funny thing, a Scottish fellow named Adam Smith figured that an economy where people don’t have money to spend ends up stagnated and/or fucked over. Somewhat ironically, that is the piece that is most often overlooked by today’s liberal economists (the kinds that are in favor or less regulation and taxes)

Most rich assholes like the idea of lording over a bunch of dirty peasants, of feeling superior to the unwashed masses, having them offer themselves into slavery out of “free will”

hint: they won’t. a flooded labor pool means the corps can pay as little as possible for the labor they do need humans for. it’s the whole point of capitalism. for a neat story about it, read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair.

I believe the French got there once and they managed to solve the issue

I really wouldn’t want to get to that point and I honestly don’t really understand why the rich class just continues this course because I do believe it’s playing with fire at this point

The economy will shift to serve a smaller number of people.

The people who lose their income will fall into poverty, existing on charity, begging, or scrounging, or they will die. (They will nearly all die sooner than they would have if they had maintained their income)

The CEOS and shareholders might understand this, but none of them can solve it alone, and trying to do so puts them at a disadvantage vrs their competitors.

The productive capacity will go toward ever more elaborate and esoteric projects, like Bezos wedding, or sending Musk to Mars, or building the biggest superyact, again.

And the majority will suffer.

Ideal : Universal Basic Income where everybody receives a set amount to live on, and if you can find a job on top of that then good for you.

Probable : 2 tier society where the poors are left to fend for themselves in increasingly feral ghettos

Almost certain : WW3. Kill off lots and lots and lots of poors. You see how many people were killed at an industrial scale in WW2. That’ll be nothing.

They actually want to depopulate the Earth, as we are a serious threat to them, both to the ecosystem that they need to survive, their own survival, and all the resources they want to drain dry. It will be just a few million or less elites, trading robot labor with each other.

It’ll just be a corprate circle jerk of companies paying each other for “products and services”. People will work for food an be shelter, provided by the company you work for. I believe the kids are calling it “techno-feudalism”.

I don’t think the ai and data centres are for us.

The billionaires who want to survive this upcoming apocalypse need ai to be functional in order to survive in their bunkers.

Everyone else till then is basically free labour, training material and collateral.

No one knows. Not a single person kn Earth

In the end, the owners have access to the resources, can get labor or whatever for cheap, and can live in control and luxury even without selling much or anything, while trading amongst themselves.

They don’t have a need or use to produce for the parents anymore. It only makes sense for as long as they have gain.

Owners may incite conflict and war to gain more control. The peasants will join for a lack of better knowledge, access, or alternatives.

We’re back in the middle ages.

People rise up and destroy or regulate the destructive forces, and establish a more sustainable system - maybe.

K shaped economy. They don’t care if we can afford anything. Its Versailles. The peasants starve while the aristocrats move the “economy”.

Why would the owners need to keep the system running if they have all the resources and tools?

One need not worry about the game not being able to continue if one already won.