> Because no-one has ever in history designed a machine that could...
> * operate switchboards better than a human could
> * compute ballistic trajectories better than a human could
> * transcribe documents better than a human could
> * assemble electronics better than a human could
> * sort mail better than a human could
> This stuff has been going on for a couple centuries now displacing lower-middle class workers.
But those technologies were not Turing machines and, most importantly, they were not Turing machines that are on the verge of being able to create other Turing machine that can do *any* task done by humans now or in the future.
To look at the extreme (and so far hypothetical case), suppose we do reach a point where an AI is created that can create other AIs to replace all existing human workers? If those AIs are owned by a small number of humans, then those owner humans will, progressively, obtain all wealth since they will own the work done by all of the new AI machine workers. Society and most human work is already owned by the Capitalists but in this hypothetical extreme case, there would be no need for all but a handful of Capitalist owners (let's call then neo-Kings). What reason would the owners, the neo-Kings, have to share wealth with the no-longer-working humans (the rest of humanity)?
Basically, this is the ultimate Capitalist end point. It can't be reached unless the humans (almost all humans) that no longer have work are given enough to prevent them from removing the owners and taking ownership of the machines and putting social mechanisms into place that assure a reasonable (to be defined) distribution of wealth. Capitalism would have reached an end point where it was no longer capable, per se, of assuring that reasonable distribution of wealth.
December 5, 2016