Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people That's the same with every efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvements (like AI) aren't zero sum. When production costs go down, competition forces prices to also go down, which then leads to more wealth for everyone not just the capital owners (even if it disproportionately benefits capital owners). People are made redundant and then…
You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. EG you you have 100 people who can't afford steam off a hotdog and 100 customers with n units of disposable income per day. Y…
That's how it's always been historically, but you are right that I can't predict it'll be the same in the future, especially when it comes to AGI.
> You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high.
Collusion to fix prices can't happen in highly competitive markets with declining production costs, because of game theory reasons. You always get this graph[1] unless you have regulatory capture such as with insulin supply in the US. Or unless you have a labor-heavy cost base such as with the education industry.
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=...
The risk with AI is that it won't be highly competitive. As a general rule, only in a monopoly-like situations can you have abnormal profits. That's where the global wealth tax comes into play, among other policies targeted at monopolistic practices.