[watwut]

> Mining and farming.

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.

[Marha01]

> 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?

What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

> 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.

Because human-level robots do not exist yet. And human work is very often the most expensive part of any advanced technological endeavour. It is the limiting factor. Good, qualified workers are very expensive.

> Robotics does not imply end of economics.

Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work, especially educated human work is currently in limited supply, so we need to allocate this limited resource efficiently. Remove this limitation and there is no longer the need for monetary economics.

[watwut]

> What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

There are no money in your world, they cant buy them. Why would the owners sell anyway? Selling the land would mean they have absolutely nothing except money they can not start new business with.

>The water is getting too expensive now. [...] Because human-level robots do not exist yet

We are not carrying water in buckets. It is all done with technology now.

> Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work

No. It exists because people who have thing too much of a thing A and a little of the a thing B. Before money, people would barter - I will give you 5 eggs and you will give me 10 apples. Money were invented to facilitate the barter.