Here's a thoughtful post related to your lump of labor point: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/TkWCKzWjcbfGzdNK5/applying-t...

What economists have taken seriously the premise that AI will be able to do any job a human can more efficiently and fully thought through it's implications? i.e. a society where (human) labor is unnecessary to create goods/provide services and only capital and natural resources are required. The capabilities that some computer scientists think AI will soon have would imply that. The ones that have seriously considered it that I know are Hanson and Cowen; it definitely feels understudied.

▲

amanaplanacanal 4 days ago | parent [-]

If it is decades or centuries off, is it really understudied? LLMs are so far from "AI will be able to do any job a human can more efficiently and fully" that we aren't even in the same galaxy.

	▲	mmmore 4 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		If AI that can fully replace humans is 25 years off, preparing society for its impacts is still one of the most important things to ensure that my children (which I have not had yet) live a prosperous and fulfilling life. The only other things of possibly similar import are preventing WWIII, and preventing a pandemic worse than COVID. I don't see how AGI could be centuries off (at least without some major disruption to global society). If computers that can talk, write essays, solve math problems, and code are not a warning sign that we should be ready, then what is?
	▲	ori_b 4 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Decades isn't a long time.