> but society will be able to create a more robust safety net than is possible today... “If medical services are a lot cheaper, if education services are near

> but society will be able to create a more robust safety net than is possible today... “If medical services are a lot cheaper, if education services are near free, if eldercare becomes substantially cheaper—and today eldercare is a liability that’s looming for so many nations around the world at a level that people haven’t accounted for—the social safety net is much easier to construct,” said Khosla, a Democratic donor. So more people will actually become doctors, home pharma labs will become a thing? We'll teach our children by robot and sidestep the whole socialization thing? There are some important things glaringly omitted. For robots to do the work, the robots must exist and will consume energy. Assume they get built. Now create the power needed to run them. That'll dwarf the extra power consumed by the AI function itself. That'll have consequences. Why would any investor seek to create a future in which the investor class makes less and less money over time? There must be some other way that they are receiving a return on that investment. Otherwise, it's philanthropy. I can argue for and see the benefit of a future in which the investors get some layer of returns (toys, food, land) in exchange for enabling this, but they become an aristocracy. The only policy that allows this to go into place and provide a broad-based freedom from labor is today called "communism" or "socialism", and those are unfortunate labels because those labels imply totalitarianism right now. I think it's worth exploring what the heck Khosla, Altman and others mean when they refer to an era of abundance. It's a social order and economic system quite different from the current one and I don't see how it accounts for human greed and limits of non-intelligent resources.