[ares623]

> How will you starve when the robots will produce food for everyone, for free? Isn't that the idea?

If the people aren't needed then why dedicate robots and land to feed them, for free?

> I think may be the government. The population will have to pay taxes for their maintenance. But it will be vastly less.

Taxes from what?

[qsera]

>If the people aren't needed then why dedicate robots and land to feed them, for free?

As I said in another comment, I think the governments should see to it that people are comfortable. It will also make it illegal to privately own combat robots. Someone could try to build a massive combat robot army in some secret lair, but governments will watch out for that.

>Taxes from what..

Maintaining robots, may be. When that too becomes automated, then no more taxes, I guess.

[shimman]

The US government has two political parties that are both entirely opposed to expanding the welfare state. Both parties are against medicare for all [1]. Both parties are against universal childcare [2]. Both parties are against free student school lunches [3]. Both parties against free higher/tertiary education [4]. Both parties are against a universal jobs program [5].

All these programs poll above majorities in the US (see citations below) and yet both political parties are against these programs. The US government is already seeing that people not only stay uncomfortable, but you have to pay for the privilege too.

If you haven't heard of the book "Four Futures" by Peter Frase I'd check it out. There is one future that is extremely prescient is the "Exterminism" future. It's exactly what you think, a group of elites decide that "Hey! Maybe we are better off with 30% less people."

It sounds extreme but if you take a few moments to truly think about it is very believable, some already governments have it as its end goal for various policy positions.

Now imagine a scenario where the elites are openly disdainful of humans (they even believe that the human race shouldn't exist; or that the end goal of humanity is to turn humans into computers), now they have the means to not only control production + its consumption but also have the military means to enforce it. Is that scenario really science fiction? That a few dozen people would forcibly slaughter and enslave others for personal self gain, is that truly confined to the realms of science fiction and not history (both lived and present)?

People need to wake the fuck up and realize that solidarity may be the only thing that saves the human race.

[1] 65% https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2025/11/medicare-for-al...

[2] 82% https://www.ffyf.org/2026/01/28/new-national-poll-shows-stro...

[3] 60% https://www.chalkbeat.org/2023/9/7/23863415/polls-support-un...

[4] 60% https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/11/democrats...

[5] 60 https://jacobin.com/2024/05/cwcp-job-guarantee-poll

[qsera]

>but you have to pay for the privilege too...

You are not considering the fact that if there are robots to do everything, then they won't be interested in you paying them. This applies to the programs that you listed as well. The equation changes completely when automonos robots do everything.

>now they have the means to not only control production + its consumption but also have the military means to enforce it.

Tell me, how many elites have a nuclear weapon.

[shimman]

If you don't understand how elites have used the US military to strong arm their holdings throughout the world, IDK what to tell you. US imperialism is a real thing that has existed for the last 120+ years, it has also only benefited a small minority of rich Americans.

See the banana wars, see the US oil interests in the middle east. These are just two major examples.

Acting like the US won't do this again when the elites have captured the political apparatus is the foolish part, especially when this is the current operating procedure at the moment (protecting money over basic human rights).

[danaris]

> The equation changes completely when automonos robots do everything.

Yes, but how it changes depends entirely on who owns the robots.

There is zero current evidence that benevolent governments will own the robots, and huge evidence that self-centered wealthy billionaires (and trillionaires!) will own them.

In such a case, the response to "the robots will make everything" isn't "so give it away to the people for free! :-)". It's "so what do I need all these stupid people for? make killbots to keep them away from my fully-automated luxury oligarchy compound!"

[qsera]

>There is zero current evidence that benevolent governments will own the robots,

But that is up to the people and their governments to decide. You seem to miss the fact that governments are made by people and for the people, and not made by the billionaires. Even a billionaire have a single vote.

Government can outlaw the private ownership of combat autonomous robots if that is what the people want.

[danaris]

> But that is up to the people and their governments to decide.

This is laughably naïve in 2026. There's been massive amounts of voter suppression, gerrymandering, and other forms of legal vote-rigging in the US, not to mention the tremendous amount of propaganda that's been fed to the country for decades in support of the oligarchs' agenda.

And then we get into the even darker possibilities, such as Trump's repeated suggestions that we don't need to vote again, that he could have a third term, his thanks to Musk for delivering him the election, etc.

And frankly, if you think that the disposition of the hypothetical robots is up to the people to decide, then surely you must believe that the current state of Western governments in 2026 genuinely represents the will of the people. If you extend that line of thought out logically, then just as surely you must conclude that there is, at least, a very high probability that the people would decide to give the robots to the oligarchs, even knowing that those robots would kill said people.

[casey2]

For all the other economic activities that robots don't run? 40% of Humans work in the food supply chain, the more automation, the more jobs. That's how it's always worked. All those people who were previously working are now spending their time looking for work, and they will find it.

As for LLMs, language is a tool for communication, not thought. That's why APL's "notation as a tool of thought" failed. And it's why LLMs will fail to replace human thought.

[fakedang]

> 40% of Humans work in the food supply chain, the more automation, the more jobs. That's how it's always worked.

X for doubt. When automation entered agriculture, we started producing way more for way less. Agriculture stopped becoming a significant part for most developed economies in terms of both GDP contribution and employment.

> All those people who were previously working are now spending their time looking for work, and they will find it.

X. The people who lose jobs rarely find something anew - they'll simply become part of an expanding labour pool, further depressing wages. All while some numpty politician would be telling them they need to stop farming and start learning how to code (never mind there's absolutely no point in doing that either).

> As for LLMs, language is a tool for communication, not thought. That's why APL's "notation as a tool of thought" failed. And it's why LLMs will fail to replace human thought.

A cursory browse through an X or reddit thread would show you otherwise. LLMs already replace human thought.