OK let's assume no stealing (which is unlikely). I think the previous argument was a little flawed anyhow, so let me start again.

I mean fundamentally if tier 2 has something to offer to tier 1, it is not yet at the equilibrium you describe (of separate economies). I think it's likely that tier 2 (before full separation) initially controls some resources. In exchange for resources tier 1 has a lot of AI-substitute labor it can offer tier 2. I think the equilibrium will be reached when tier 2 is offered some large sum of AI-labor for those resource production means. This will in the interim make tier 2 richer. But in the long run, when the economies truly separate, tier 2 will have basically no natural resources.

This thing about natural resources being small fraction is current day breakdown. I think in the future where AI autonomously increases efficiency of the loop which makes more AI-compute from natural resources, its fraction will increase to much higher levels. Ultimately, I think such a separation as you describe will be stable only when all natural resources are controlled by tier 1 and tier 2 gets by with either gifts or stealing form tier 1.

> Ultimately, I think such a separation as you describe will be stable only when all natural resources are controlled by tier 1 and tier 2 gets by with either gifts or stealing form tier 1.

For that to happen tier 1 would have to buy all of the resources from tier 2. Would you sell your house and be homeless so that you can have a highly efficient humanoid robot? I don't think so. And sooner or later, what tier 2 would want from tier 1 is what they need to build their AIs, and then they'd be more similar to tier 1.