The argument goes like this:

- Today, AI is not incredibly useful and we are not 100% sure that it will improve forever, specially in a way that makes economic sense, but

- Investors are pouring lots of money into it. One should not assume that those investors are not making their due diligence. They are. The figures they have obtained from experts mean that AI is expected to continue improving in the short and medium term.

- Investors are not counting on people using AI to go to Mars. They are betting on AI replacing labor. The slice of the pie that is currently captured by labor, will be captured by capital instead. That's why they are pouring the money with such enthusiasm [^1].

The above is nothing new; it has been constantly happening since the Industrial Revolution. What is new is that AI has the potential to replace all of the remaining economic worth of humans, effectively leaving them out of the economy. Humans can still opt to "forcefully" participate in the economy or its rewards; though it's unclear if we will manage. In terms of pure economic incentives though, humans are destined to become redundant.

[^1]: That doesn't mean all the jobs will go away overnight, or that there won't be new jobs in the short and medium term.

Investors are frequently wrong. They aren't getting their numbers from experts, they are getting them from somebody trying to sell them something.

> "One should not assume that those investors are not making their due diligence."

The sort of investors who got burned by the 2008 mortgage CDO collapse or the 2000s dotcom bust?