I think I might’ve been misunderstand your argument this whole time. It seemed like you were in the “blindly pro-AI” camp that I hear all the time on other social media. I don’t know if we even fundamentally disagree overall and might’ve just been arguing past each other.

I don’t think the tech is anywhere near where you think it is, as people have been making claims of automated factories and robotic workers for 2 decades now and while we are “closer” than we were, that tech has always been about “a decade away” the entire time.

The key factor here is making robotic workers that can do the job in a more cost-efficient way than real workers, and that isn’t there yet. It’s too expensive and fails too often. I don’t think the systems will need to be perfect to replace workers, just “good enough.” Like how a lot of fast food restaurants use automated kiosks these days instead of having an extra person working on the till. Those things are unsanitary nightmares and break down and fail constantly, and people often struggle to use them, despite their design being as simple as possible. But despite not being “good” for either the restaurant or the customers, they are cheaper than having extra staff working.

That’s how this tech will emerge, not as a glorious automated revolution of labour, but as a messy robot forklift that knocks boxes over half the time, but has a much cheaper running cost than the workers. It will be bad for both workers and consumers, but will technically make a profit over the alternative. That’s why this is something we should oppose, not because the tech “isn’t there yet” but because the capitalists have no incentive to wait until it gets advanced enough. It just needs to be profitable enough, and every time that has happened in history, it’s always turned out worse for society.