That's the best case, I'm talking about the worst case. It's a bit like you don't have unprotected sex with strangers because "they might not have HIV". You don

That's the best case, I'm talking about the worst case. It's a bit like you don't have unprotected sex with strangers because "they might not have HIV". You don't play around with this stuff. I'm furthermore encouraged in my "skepticism" (to put it mildly) by the abstract, alienated language some people use. > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. -- Stephen Hawking in a very lucid moment, https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Those who don't address that first, who cannot ENSURE that they're building a nuclear power plant and not an atom bomb, have no excuse.