1 hour of work and 7 hours of play? Nah. Then you can easily compete by just working a bit more and soon only those that work more are competitive. Your assump

1 hour of work and 7 hours of play? Nah. Then you can easily compete by just working a bit more and soon only those that work more are competitive. Your assumption is that we will need to compete to meet our needs, and I don't think that's necessarily the case: competition within a population only matters when resources are scarce and our efforts have a significant effect on the value of those resources relative to the background level that exists regardless of our presence. Given that to any sufficiently advanced AI we will be less intelligent than our housepets are to us, I think it's a stretch to imagine that we'll be economically relevant at all. When you have two dogs, they don't need to compete with each other to do very well - you feed them based on what they need, regardless of what their relative levels of effort would merit in an environment that didn't include you, the owner. In other words: if we have a peaceful coexistence long enough for computers to truly surpass us (which should not take very long once they reach our level), the table scraps that they hopefully toss down to us will probably render irrelevant anything that we could produce ourselves. And if they don't offer table scraps, we're pretty well screwed, because they're the de facto owners of all the resources since we have no significant power to wield against them and we don't have anything valuable enough to offer in trade. "Friendly housepet" is probably the status we should be shooting for when we achieve AGI, honestly. Cooperative scenarios fail quickly because after a short time we would have precious little to offer an advanced AGI, and the antagonistic scenarios only end one way, with humans losing a disastrously one-sided battle. Edit: grammar (need to drink coffee before posting on HN from now on)