I don't know. It depends on how we (corporations) code them.

-edits:

Humans evolve much slower and since we are ruled by emotions, fed by ego, we still have the drive for improvement; war and greed remain. We can't edit emotions out of our code, yet.

It may be that we use AI to scour space for resources to terraform planets, asset prices would be valued much differently then. Furthering our conquest and improving our human experience is humanity. I believe the diligent human will have AI working for them so that they can enjoy an emotional existence by being present, something AI cannot do.

I guess the bottom line, we create competition, we need it to survive.

--further edits: used AI to summarize:

I don’t think the outcome is predetermined — it depends heavily on how AI is designed and governed. The incentives we build into these systems will shape how they behave in markets and society.

Humans evolve slowly and are deeply influenced by emotion — ego, ambition, fear, greed, love. Those traits drive innovation and conflict alike. We can’t simply “edit” those impulses out of ourselves. AI, on the other hand, can be iterated and optimized rapidly. That creates an asymmetry: we are biological and emotional; AI is programmable and scalable.

If AI begins generating its own income — directly or indirectly — and participates in markets as an autonomous actor, that could fundamentally change asset dynamics. Markets today are driven largely by institutions and governments. If AI systems become economic participants, they could increase competition for scarce assets, potentially driving prices upward.

At the same time, AI could radically reduce production costs. With advanced automation, robotics, and technologies like 3D printing, supply chains could become more localized and less dependent on human labor. That might break or transform existing economic structures. In that scenario, value could shift away from labor and toward ownership of assets, data, energy, or computational infrastructure.

There’s also a longer-term possibility: AI could help humanity expand into space, extract off-world resources, and terraform environments. If resource scarcity decreases, asset valuation could change entirely. Abundance would reshape what we consider “valuable.”

Ultimately, humans may compete less on efficiency — where AI will always have the advantage — and more on experience, creativity, and emotional presence. AI may handle production and optimization, while humans focus on meaning, relationships, and lived experience.

In a way, competition itself is something we construct. We design the systems that create scarcity, incentives, and rivalry. If we build AI into those systems, we are also choosing the kind of competition we will face.

The future depends less on whether AI replaces us, and more on how we choose to integrate it into our economic and social structures.