How AI, Robotics, and Clean Energy Will End Labor and Money – A Future Where Everything Is Free

[BigMike]

Sorry, Yuval, but I don't buy it.

It's not happening (the AI bubble is about to burst).

you’re basically saying...

...what I've been sayin' all along: we're free wills, not meat machines. No one is gonna walk nicely into your Colossus-run tomorrow. No one who is sane wants it. It won't happen.

Henry, do you even understand what you're saying anymore, or are you just repeating "meat machines" like it’s some kind of philosophical mic drop? Because it’s not. It’s just tired.

You keep throwing around "meat machine" like you’re above it—like you’re something magical floating above cause and effect. But here's reality:
Memory and learning in your brain are physical alterations of your neural structure.
Every thought you have, every memory you hold, every feeling you experience is a pattern of electrical and chemical changes across a slab of neurons.

Your brain remembers by physically strengthening or weakening synaptic connections.
Your brain sees patterns because networks of neurons fire together and reinforce each other.
Your brain extrapolates the future by chaining those patterns into simulations based on experience.

That’s your “free will” in action: your meat machine crunching cause and effect just like every other physical system in the universe. No magic. No ghost in the machine. Just a fantastically complex biological computer shaped by forces you neither created nor control.

You talk about "free will" and "no one walking nicely" into a post-labor future—as if your preferences can stop physics, automation, or economics from moving forward. They can't. And no amount of shouting “free will!” from the rooftops will change that.

So here's a serious question, Henry: Do you actually believe you are something separate from your own brain?
Because if you do, you’re not debating reality—you’re arguing with 150 years of science, and losing badly.

Your rhetoric isn’t a rebellion. It’s just noise. And it’s getting old.

[henry quirk]

Do you actually believe you are something separate from your own brain?

We covered this, Mike. I, like you, am a Thomistic hylomorph.

And, let's not forget: No one is gonna walk nicely into your Colossus-run tomorrow. No one who is sane wants it. It won't happen.

[seeds]

So the question isn’t whether food and shelter can be made free by 2058. They technically can be. The question is whether we’ll demand that outcome, or let the old powers keep charging us rent for sunlight and server space.

That’s the future I’m talking about. Not Soylent satire, not corporate utopia. Just physics, automation, and human choices. We can get it wrong. Or we can start talking about how to get it right—before we’re digging each other out from the rubble.

Well, all I can say is that based on your deterministic philosophy, isn't what we are presently experiencing simply an ongoing instance of natural "evolution" wherein a lower form of mindless, agentless, soulless automatons make way for higher forms of mindless, agentless, soulless automatons?

The point is, why not just acquiesce to what Spinoza called "natura naturans" (nature naturing), and "...let nature do what nature does..." — AI Overview.

I mean, if according to hardcore determinism, humans are nothing more than mindless, agentless, soulless "meat machines,"...

...then who are we to stand in the way of, in this case, what paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould might call the "punctuated equilibrium" or "punctuated evolution" (as in the more "abrupt" evolution) of more advanced (less squishy/less fragile/more intelligent) machines who are simply on the evolutionary path that leads to what physicist John von Neumann called the "Technological Singularity"? (See "AI Singularity" also.)

And perhaps even further than that, to an even loftier theory that suggests that the universe itself is on an evolutionary path that leads to what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called the "Omega Point" (look it up).

Alright, Seeds, you’re not just tossing softballs here—you’re pitching fast and wild, and I appreciate it. So let’s dig in carefully, because you’re raising several really sharp points:

First, about my "concrete claim" of 80% labor displacement by the late 2050s:
You’re asking: how exactly do I imagine survival needs being met for billions of people when this happens?
Good question. Here's the honest answer: I don't think the survival needs will automatically be met.
I'm not predicting that society will solve it neatly—I’m predicting that the technological capability to displace 80% of jobs will exist and will be widely deployed. Those are two very different things.

The only two things in this conversation that are indeed very different from one another are the following...

First, it's your initial "concrete claim"...

I predict that by the late 2050s, at least 80% of all human labor in the most developed countries will be gone.

...compared to your follow-up to that claim...

I'm not predicting that society will solve it neatly—I’m predicting that the technological capability to displace 80% of jobs will exist and will be widely deployed.

Predicting that a technological "capability" (as in "potential") to displace 80% of jobs "...will exist..." in the late 2050s,...

...is a far cry from (is very different from) predicting that at least 80% of all human labor in the most developed countries "...will be gone..." due to AI and robotics replacing the human workforce.

Come on now, BigMike, just swallow your pride for once and admit that you were perhaps...what's the term?...oh yeah, a little "over your skis" when you made that initial "concrete claim."

Technology moves under its own momentum—capitalism demands efficiency, and as AI/robotics/energy tech scale up, companies will adopt them ruthlessly. Whether governments and societies adapt in time is the real wild card.

Well, capitalism may demand efficiency, however, "common sense" demands that if no one has any money to pay for whatever it is that the ruthless companies and their robots are creating, then what's the point of capitalism?

I created a thread on the ILP site last month dealing with this same subject. The thread is titled: "...Are AI and robotics leading us to self-destruction?..."

If anyone is interested, then here's the link: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-a ... tion/81068

(P.S., I even got ChatGPT to create some fun pictures depicting the aftermath of the AI takeover.)

Second, about determinism and your Spinoza/Gould/Teilhard de Chardin references:
Brilliant move bringing that in. Let me walk carefully here:

Yes—if we accept a hard deterministic worldview, then all of this is natural evolution. Human biological machines giving way to synthetic ones is just another unfolding of cause and effect, another step in the blind procession of natura naturans.

Yes.

And I cannot help but wonder why you seem to think that we humans,...

(who are the metaphorical equivalent of some soon-to-be extinct, pre-human hominid in this scenario)

...should put up a resistance to the inevitable (deterministic) forces of the natural processes of evolution in which, as you said, "...human biological machines..." are being replaced by "...synthetic ones..."?

The point is that you need to put down your spear and iPhone, BigMike, and be ready to take your place among the scores of extinct creatures from which our soon-to-be truncated branch of the evolutionary tree ascended from.

For only if you are a billionaire (or potential trillionaire) like Emperor Trump, or Elon (the evil minion) Musk, and can afford to someday have your consciousness uploaded to a computer,...

...only then could you be counted as making it to the next stage of wherever this whacky path of evolution is taking the "machines."
_______

[BigMike]

Do you actually believe you are something separate from your own brain?

We covered this, Mike. I, like you, am a Thomistic hylomorph.

And, let's not forget: No one is gonna walk nicely into your Colossus-run tomorrow. No one who is sane wants it. It won't happen.

Alright, Henry—
Just let me know when you lose your job.
When you’re no longer needed.
No longer wanted.

We’ll see then how loudly you’re still shouting that it "won’t happen."

[BigMike]

Well, all I can say is that based on your deterministic philosophy, isn't what we are presently experiencing simply an ongoing instance of natural "evolution" wherein a lower form of mindless, agentless, soulless automatons make way for higher forms of mindless, agentless, soulless automatons?

The point is, why not just acquiesce to what Spinoza called "natura naturans" (nature naturing), and "...let nature do what nature does..." — AI Overview.

I mean, if according to hardcore determinism, humans are nothing more than mindless, agentless, soulless "meat machines,"...

...then who are we to stand in the way of, in this case, what paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould might call the "punctuated equilibrium" or "punctuated evolution" (as in the more "abrupt" evolution) of more advanced (less squishy/less fragile/more intelligent) machines who are simply on the evolutionary path that leads to what physicist John von Neumann called the "Technological Singularity"? (See "AI Singularity" also.)

And perhaps even further than that, to an even loftier theory that suggests that the universe itself is on an evolutionary path that leads to what Pierre Teilhard de Chardin called the "Omega Point" (look it up).

Alright, Seeds, you’re not just tossing softballs here—you’re pitching fast and wild, and I appreciate it. So let’s dig in carefully, because you’re raising several really sharp points:

First, about my "concrete claim" of 80% labor displacement by the late 2050s:
You’re asking: how exactly do I imagine survival needs being met for billions of people when this happens?
Good question. Here's the honest answer: I don't think the survival needs will automatically be met.
I'm not predicting that society will solve it neatly—I’m predicting that the technological capability to displace 80% of jobs will exist and will be widely deployed. Those are two very different things.

The only two things in this conversation that are indeed very different from one another are the following...

First, it's your initial "concrete claim"...

I predict that by the late 2050s, at least 80% of all human labor in the most developed countries will be gone.

...compared to your follow-up to that claim...

I'm not predicting that society will solve it neatly—I’m predicting that the technological capability to displace 80% of jobs will exist and will be widely deployed.

Predicting that a technological "capability" (as in "potential") to displace 80% of jobs "...will exist..." in the late 2050s,...

...is a far cry from (is very different from) predicting that at least 80% of all human labor in the most developed countries "...will be gone..." due to AI and robotics replacing the human workforce.

Come on now, BigMike, just swallow your pride for once and admit that you were perhaps...what's the term?...oh yeah, a little "over your skis" when you made that initial "concrete claim."

Technology moves under its own momentum—capitalism demands efficiency, and as AI/robotics/energy tech scale up, companies will adopt them ruthlessly. Whether governments and societies adapt in time is the real wild card.

Well, capitalism may demand efficiency, however, "common sense" demands that if no one has any money to pay for whatever it is that the ruthless companies and their robots are creating, then what's the point of capitalism?

I created a thread on the ILP site last month dealing with this same subject. The thread is titled: "...Are AI and robotics leading us to self-destruction?..."

If anyone is interested, then here's the link: https://www.ilovephilosophy.com/t/are-a ... tion/81068

(P.S., I even got ChatGPT to create some fun pictures depicting the aftermath of the AI takeover.)

Second, about determinism and your Spinoza/Gould/Teilhard de Chardin references:
Brilliant move bringing that in. Let me walk carefully here:

Yes—if we accept a hard deterministic worldview, then all of this is natural evolution. Human biological machines giving way to synthetic ones is just another unfolding of cause and effect, another step in the blind procession of natura naturans.

Yes.

And I cannot help but wonder why you seem to think that we humans,...

(who are the metaphorical equivalent of some soon-to-be extinct, pre-human hominid in this scenario)

...should put up a resistance to the inevitable (deterministic) forces of the natural processes of evolution in which, as you said, "...human biological machines..." are being replaced by "...synthetic ones..."?

The point is that you need to put down your spear and iPhone, BigMike, and be ready to take your place among the scores of extinct creatures from which our soon-to-be truncated branch of the evolutionary tree ascended from.

For only if you are a billionaire (or potential trillionaire) like Emperor Trump, or Elon (the evil minion) Musk, and can afford to someday have your consciousness uploaded to a computer,...

...only then could you be counted as making it to the next stage of wherever this whacky path of evolution is taking the "machines."
_______

Alright, Seeds, I see what you’re doing—trying to corner me into admitting some grand retreat—but honestly, you’re stretching harder than I ever did.

Let’s get something straight:
Predicting that the technological capability to displace 80% of human labor will exist and will be widely deployed is not meaningfully different from predicting that 80% of jobs will be gone in practice.
You’re acting like companies will spend trillions building job-killing machines and then just... not use them?
That’s not how capitalism works. If you think technological capability + ruthless capitalist adoption = business-as-usual employment rates, you’re living in a fantasy land.

The technology, once mature, will be deployed because that’s what capitalism demands: lower costs, higher profits, less human unpredictability. And the “common sense” you're appealing to? That’s exactly why we’re heading for systemic collapse if we don’t plan for this now—because the economy as it exists today depends on widespread employment, and mass unemployment will break it.
That’s the problem, not a get-out-of-jail-free card.

---

As for the whole "natura naturans" bit—you’re taking determinism to mean passive surrender. Wrong.
In a deterministic universe, resistance itself is just another natural process.
When a tree grows toward the sun, is it "resisting" gravity? No—it's just following its determined path based on its internal structure and external forces.

Similarly, when humans see that automation is threatening mass suffering and collapse, fighting to steer the outcome toward something humane is just as natural as letting ourselves be steamrolled.
The fact that I advocate for resistance, adaptation, and political change doesn’t contradict determinism—it’s a manifestation of it.

---

You keep mocking with stuff like "put down your spear and iPhone," but let’s be blunt:
If you’re willing to sit back, fold your arms, and sneer while civilization collapses into an automated dystopia—fine. That’s your deterministic role.
Some of us, though, are determined to fight for a future where the majority doesn’t get left behind like obsolete tech in a landfill.

And no—I’m not looking to upload myself to a server to bow down before Emperor Trump 2.0, thanks.
I’m trying to keep humanity human—flawed, messy, creative, alive—while the machines do the grunt work.

Maybe think about that before you start handing your destiny over to entropy with a shrug.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Will they or will they not allow pets?!

[commonsense]

Will they or will they not allow pets?!

Sure, they would. As the Beatles put it, love is everywhere.

[BigMike]

Alright—let’s lay it out clearly and without hedging: it is entirely plausible that by the late 2050s, 80% of the jobs in the most highly developed countries could be gone for good. Not because of some sci-fi fantasy, but because of a chain reaction already set in motion.

First, we’re standing on the edge of a full-stack AI and robotics breakthrough. It’s not just about chatbots answering your emails anymore—it’s about cheap, dexterous robots and reasoning AI fusing into something that can load trucks, prepare operating rooms, manage warehouses, and even provide basic elder care. McKinsey’s data already shows that half of all human work activities could be automated with today’s or very-near-future technology, with full-scale cost-effective automation estimated between 2045 and 2060. If we land on the earlier side of that window, human labor across huge sectors starts getting displaced at a blistering rate.

Meanwhile, the hardware cost curves are going to crash. Just like solar panels and lithium batteries dropped by 80–90% over two decades, industrial and service robots are going to follow the same path. A robot that costs $120,000 today might cost $12,000 in 15 years. When that happens, and you’re a business owner in Berlin, Toronto, or Tokyo paying $35 an hour for a human worker—you’ll swap flesh for silicon without thinking twice. Rich countries with high wages will be the first to feel the blow.

Then layer in demographics. Developed countries are shrinking. Working-age populations in Japan, Germany, Italy, South Korea, and even parts of the U.S. will be smaller in 2050 than they were in 2020. Fewer young workers, more retirees, more demand for labor-saving technologies. It’s not just cheaper—it becomes necessary to keep economies from grinding to a halt.

Now imagine governments piling on with well-meaning policies. Higher minimum wages, shorter workweeks, and restrictions on immigration all sound good on paper, but they accelerate automation even further. Every human-labor cost added to the ledger speeds the tipping point. And if governments introduce UBI or wage insurance to soften the human impact, it reduces political resistance, allowing corporations to automate even faster.

And it doesn’t stop there. AI is rapidly learning how to interact directly with other AI systems. Freight negotiations, insurance underwriting, real estate planning—all increasingly handled by autonomous agents. If AI can deal with AI more efficiently than a human middleman can, why keep paying the middleman?

Finally, there’s the consumer feedback loop. Productivity gains ought to create new jobs through new industries and consumer demand. But if wealth keeps concentrating at the top—owned by those running capital-heavy AI platforms—the broad-based demand that traditionally spawns replacement jobs never shows up. Goods get cheaper, yes, but without new middle-class spending, the economy’s job-creation engine stalls.

The numbers are already brutal. The IMF says 60% of current jobs in advanced economies are exposed to AI. McKinsey believes that half of all tasks could be fully automated by mid-century. UN DESA acknowledges the possibility that 80% of occupations could, in principle, be automated entirely. If no serious, coordinated reskilling or new labor-intensive industries emerge—and there’s little evidence of that happening now—then by 2059, four out of every five jobs could simply cease to exist.

This isn’t science fiction. It’s simple momentum—and it’s moving faster than most people realize.

[BigMike]

I'm going to say it plain, because anything softer would just be lying to you: you idiots are screwed.

You can mock, you can deny, you can crack your little dystopian jokes about "meat machines" and "Colossus" and AI fairy tales—but none of that changes the trajectory we’re on.
The machines are coming. The jobs are going. The system you think you understand is already crumbling under your feet.

And while you're busy laughing at the messengers, the ground is opening up beneath you.
Keep it up. See where it gets you.

[Impenitent]

skynet saves

-Imp

[seeds]

_______

Notes: KIV
_______

[Alexis Jacobi]

Chill out, Mike! We’re all fucked and there is very little we can do.

Here, here is a visual poem.

[Alexis Jacobi]

25 April, some God-forsaken year

Why do they torment me? What do they want from poor me? What can I give them? I have nothing. It's beyond my strength, I cannot endure all their torments, my head is burning, and everything is whirling before me. Save me! take me! give me a chariot of steeds swift as the wind! Take the reins, my driver, ring out, my bells, soar aloft, and carry me out of this world! Farther, farther, so that there's nothing to be seen, nothing. Here is the sky billowing before me; a little star shines in the distance; a forest races by with dark trees and a crescent moon; blue mist spreads under my feet; a string twangs in the mist; on one side the sea, on the other Newfoundland; and there I see some Canadian hovels. Is that my house blue in the distance? Is that my mother sitting at the window? Dear mother, save your poor son! shed a tear on his sick head! see how they torment him! press the poor orphan to your breast! there's no place for him in the world! they’re driving him out! Dear mother! pity your sick child!...And, Devil take it! BigMike has dropped another bombshell at PN!

[henry quirk]

Just let me know when you lose your job.

I self-employ, so...not gonna happen (just like the rest of your lil fantasy).

[henry quirk]

you idiots are screwed.

Only if we lay down and let Colossus, and the Colossus-lovers, run the show.

We won't, so: we aren't.