There's a lot of points to cover, so I'll cover just these two. Fry tries to make an analogy between AI and money. > Ai should be compared ... to a much older

There's a lot of points to cover, so I'll cover just these two. Fry tries to make an analogy between AI and money. > Ai should be compared ... to a much older and more foundational and transformative human invention. [...] That invention is money. Yes, but not quite. He makes a previous reference to the natural force of gravity on rivers, and what Fry is searching for, is the invention of capitalism. Capitalism directs the flow of money like gravity directs the stream. It's a force that changes incentives - one that's seen as natural as that of the forces of nature. This is a better analogy to AI than money. Money transformed the human experience, sure, but we can envision a world without money, we can't envision a world without capital. > What do we have left that is ours and ours alone? Pulling a page out of sociological functionalism, intelligence (among other things) has the existential purpose of elevating human status. Humans are uniquely intelligent in a way that makes people feel special. Encroaching on this exclusivity is a threat to that status. Therefore, either AI must not be created, or it cannot be equivalently intelligent. For those who create value in being uniquely intelligent, AI cannot be.