AI has already made just about anyone who knows how to use it vastly richer. You can get (often better) medical diagnosis without taking time off from work, navigate a will and a tax return without having to hire a lawyer, figure out how to structure investments without hiring a financial manager, learn exactly what steps to take and what you need to buy to do a home repair. Have an idea of something to sell? You can offload a lot of figuring out market fit, advertising, business structure, etc. People who want to be entrepreneurs have a lot less holding them back.

As for killing economic activity, I realize you view all of those all as net losses to society since no six or seven figure salary professional gets to send a massive bill in the mail. But for my part I am buying **more things** things because AI is helping me find out exactly what I need - often solutions I hadn't realized were available. And I am engaging **more** services for the same reason - not every home repair is feasible with AI help, but I can use it to find out when and what professionals are needed, expected cost, and who is licensed and well-reviewed.

Effectively having an auto-shopper buy all sorts of stuff for me and hire services I previously didn't have time to verify would be a net benefit is supposed to "reduce" economic activity???

If we even buy into the theory that humans or some group of humans will be completely sidelined by the AI economy, to the point they don't have jobs - might not those extraneous humans still want to eat? And might not they turn to finding ways to produce their own food? And wouldn't some of them need to work on the necesssary equipment? And isn't it conceivable they would start trading skills and material for food, mediated by some agreed upon means of exchange? And if some portion of that food or material might be even the least bit useful to anyone in the AI economy, might not they trade with them as well?

There is not going to be an end to economic activity. Economic activity isn't whatever is leftover for humans to do after the machines finish, economic activity is whatever humans (A) want and (B) can obtain. 'A' is limitless; 'B' only increases over time.

It remains ridiculous that schools continue to view themselves as extrajudicial courts where they get to demand your testimony and then extract pretext to punish you according to their sensibilities of the moment.

Keep in mind you are often not allowed to have legal counsel but they start by telling you "oh just an informality"*

At this point virtually all the multi-billion dollar tech companies are American or Chinese. Europe's combined startup revenue over the last 50 years is less than Home Depot. The EU's GDP has been Welp, THAT was a big mistake.

If you want to set ground rules fine. But if the output of *your particular attempt* at it is to get effectively zero innovation and declining economic output, shouldn't the conclusion be "wow we seem to be really bad at this we may need to adjust our approach"?

"Kids" seems an odd place to draw the line in this case. I think most adults also are a bit vulnerable stepping into a complete stranger's car and might also prefer not to be assaulted?