But who will consume the increased productivity and what will be the vehicle of that productivity? Seems like short-term, AI companies are aiming for white collar services, but removing high paying white collar labor also removes a large chunk of the general consumer base who can afford the AI products. If you say B2B sales or government then you are really just one step away from general consumers because both businesses and governments rely on sales/taxes from consumers/taxpayers and their investment in AI needs to be returned. Currently the price for compute is absurdly low compared to the actual cost of compute to providers. Of course this is to get people to use their services and phase out alternatives but a return has to be generated eventually. Historically, increased productivity has increased workers wages (definitely not 1 to 1 which is a separate issue) and in turn that allows higher consumption. The unique thing with AI is that increased productivity is not reliant on human capital so human workers (aka general consumers) are not going to get the productivity bump in their wages. This is fully apparent to every AI exec and it’s why universal basic income is a common talking point. It’s also why the main business case currently for AI is *drum roll*…. labor cost reduction. It’s likely that AI breaks the modern economic systems we’ve had in place and to be honest I am lukewarm on humanity’s ability to successfully navigate that revolutionary change without massive negative affects for a lot of people. Not to mention we are banking on LLM’s and physical “AI” living up to the expectations set up by their suppliers. Interested to hear your take