This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.
If people dont buy, company does not have money nor income. Simple as that. There will be no need to use those machines, because you cant sell the output of those machines.
So, you have starwing hopeless population not buying your products. Which means you cant produce. Which means, you eventually become part of that starwing population (or they kill you in some outburst).
You are still thinking in terms of monetary economics about a situation where money is no longer needed.
In a monetary economy, if you need X, you need the money to buy it. In a post-AGI economy, if you need X, you ask your human-level robots to make it (including making more robots). No money involved at all.
In this speculative scenario, robots could do that, but they can't just do it anywhere as it depends on where the minerals and land is at and who owns it, where power plants can be built, how supplies get shipped.
The idea that economics goes out the windows in a post-AGI world is highly speculative and not a situation that has ever happened in the real world.
> Like they will magically create metal and food from nothing?
Not from nothing. How do humans create metal and food? Mining and farming. You ask your human-level robots to do the same. Human-level robots can by definition do everything humans can do, including gathering basic resources and growing food.
> Will they create also water that will be getting more expensive due data center consumption?
Data center consumption of water is miniscule compared to other uses. But yes, you ask the robots to make you water, for example by building desalination plants.
Even if there is still monetary economy, and you come to the conclusion that buying something is the best way to get it, you simply ask your robots to think of a way to earn you money by performing work for others, or making things to sell on the market. If they are truly human-level, they can do it.
> This is absurd.
This is the reality, if human-level AI and robotics is developed.
So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff? If your actual plan is such fascist takeover where AI companies bully everyone else, then everyone else is entirely valid to wage war against you before you are close to that goal.
> Data center consumption of water is miniscule compared to other uses. But yes, you ask the robots to make you water, for example by building desalination plants.
The water is getting too expensive now. Why are they not doing that now already? Technology is there and work is not the most expensive part of this.
Same with energy. So, you plan to take over the power plants by force? And take over the land to build them on? These AI companies could be building power plants, could even pick places where they dont give kids asthma already ... but they are choosing not to.
> This is the reality, if human-level AI and robotics is developed.
No, it is not reality. You are ignoring reality. Robotics does not imply end of economics. The end of economics will happen only if you win war and install an odious violent autocracy. Which I understand is an intentional goal of current CEOs and their fans. I both disagree with that goal and find it, frankly, stupid.
money is just an abstraction over value, it is not value itself. if AGI is achieved, the AI labs will just use AGI to produce what they need instead of trading for it, which would include full vertical integration on all products.
To compare, great depression had 25.6 unemployment rate. It helped the WWII to happen. It wont be the end of capitalism. But, it would mean major outbursts of violence and major civil war or revolution. Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets.
But my point really was that it is economic nonsense.
> Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets.
That depends on what those companies do in response. Giving away robot-produced stuff for free could quicky earn them praise, instead of hate. If human-level robots enable massive increases in efficiency and production, at least one of the companies will decide to mitigate any risks in this way.
You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference. To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current owners.
And they will be hated, because they stripped people of future and bought in violent hellscape for literally everyone.
> You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference.
You don't need to persuade all of them.
> To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current owners.
Steal, or buy? And perhaps not. With robotic labor massively increasing economic efficiency, other forms of production could become viable, such as vertical farming.