Raw LLM Responses

The fundamentally wrong thought here is that it implies no one will cater to the needs of the people and sell them stuff. If one doesn't have a job, one doesn't need one from an AI powered company necessarily. One can: become an entrepreneur and make either stuff that exists that people need, or make something new, or: get a job in a different area. People are fine pursuing their own needs, that's what pushes economic activity. AI companies won't make and sell you food because it's not profitable enough to them? Fine, some smaller entrepreneurs will, as it's profitable from their own standpoint. This whole argument in the video that "all jobs will be replaced" is flawed, and there are historical precedents. Two centuries ago about 90% of the population lived in the countryside and 60-90% (by country) worked in agriculture. Today: In the industrial nations, between 1-3% work in agriculture, AND the economy has expanded far beyond that. People didn't die from it, they increased their standards and got more educated. AI can't do every job in the real world, and people will protect their interests well enough that AI stays a human-owned asset. The only area in the world where the old numbers are still true is Sub-Sahara Africa. To conclude: We have seen it, and people WILL find other productive uses of their time. Just enough government intervention gives people opportunity, too much is counterproductive and slows growth, there has to be a balance. From my European standpoint: countries here are doing largely a good job with social benefits and are on the side of slightly too much (taxes lower competitiveness almost too much), while the US is clearly on the side of not doing enough benefits.