I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent. The

I think the argument is that you 'need other people' because those people can vote. The theory is that this ensures that automation is socially benevolent. The theory is that increasing leverage continues to produce even more super-concentrated wealth, creating both the means and the political will (in the form of enlightened self-interest of the ultra-rich) to use surplus wealth to do things like Basic Income. It's plausible, I guess. But I don't think that timeline is necessarily a lock. 'Other people' can vote in a democracy, but that may not be enough! The mass of people used to have more convincing political/market power, due to the world needing them as 'wet robots' for labor. In the absence of real power for the mass of people, in the absence of the world actually 'needing' them for their output, I'm skeptical that mere democratic institutions are a good enough protection. Democratic institutions, despite their relative benevolence, have historically have extended political power to people who are already de facto powerful (at least powerful enough to demand a seat at the table!), whether it be wealthy property owners in the age of the 'one-class' society, or the working heads-of-household during the heyday of human labor. Power finds a way in any human system, is all I'm saying, and to the extent that increasing numbers of people lack power in the market, I'm skeptical that democratic institutions will guarantee benevolent social outcomes.