> Are they expecting the equity they get in some AI company will save them personally from economic ruin, so they're fine with that outcome?

Yes. Basically based on my conversations with coworkers who went to these frontier AI labs: this is happening anyway, so they may as well make the money while they still can.

But making money isn't enough, though? If you think about it from this perspective, what matters far more is connections with the wealthy, or enough power to defend yourself.

Which is different from just being rich and chilling. Rich and chilling implies a stable society. But life isn't a video game where you hit some Absolute Level 99 and are impervious to everything. There's no outside justificatior for you - only you are. In this hypothetical society, when GrokBots rule the world, you think they'll care that you're a millionaire? You need to get into the inner circle.

I see some really smart professors/PhDs even, going to SV, starting startups, networking, etc. That is consistent with the worldview.

But someone who says that AI can replace them but just works at a lab, at least has the belief that they will be automated last. Maybe they believe they can become friends with the AI, I don't know. But let's stop and analyze the situation with a bit more nuance, for more than like, 5 seconds.

> this is happening anyway, so they may as well make the money while they still can.

There's got to be a special name for that kind of treachery. I suppose "collaboration," but that doesn't have a nasty enough ring to it.

Like a fascist occupation, that dystopia isn't "happening anyway" without collaborators.