> However, the entire argument hinges on one assertion, buried about halfway through:
>> Robots are improving fast, but I do not believe that this cute fellow will be stuffing envelopes or affixing stamps anytime soon.
Okay, lets presume he is correct; the conclusion is still "We will do the unthinking manual work requiring physical dexterity while the computers will direct us".
That's not a positive outcome.
Which brings us neatly to why many people are opposed to “AI” and automation.
We’re automating away the pleasurable work and leaving the drudgery for humans, when it should be the other way around.
Robots should be toiling while humans create art and music and whatever else they desire.
AI image generation doesn’t “democratize” art. Art has always been available to everyone. Anyone can learn to make art. AI image generation devalues artists and robs everyone else of the desire to learn art skills themselves.
It turns out there's a counter–magic circle, and that's the economy. Even if people are happy to move to a commune without internet, they won't produce efficiently, so they won't be able to pay property taxes. The system consumes everything that doesn't already follow it.