I think the economically rational choice is re-education of the group into value-providing employment and mass extermination of those that refuse.

Otherwise you might end up with disruptive things like protests, blockage of value creating infrastructure, etc.

Another less dramatic option would be containment in prisons or similar where minimal costs can be incurred.

The irony of comments like this is that the vast majority of people who make them would not be in the group they think they belong to.

You're still undershooting just how grim the optimal outcome of our system is. It's not going to be about 'refusal', like taking a bargain and making choices. If total automation is achieved, huge swaths of people will be placed into that bracket immediately, based largely on their luck, the country they live in and their wealth. An automated world doesn't need this many people to run itself, so only a chosen few will make it through. The rest will eventually be slowly destroyed in the most cruel ways possible. People will keep chanting "Adapt or die" until it turns into simply "Die".

Yeah, that for many people is a "AI must be prevented from happening at all because it will bring about this outcome" argument.

Don’t be daft. All that man power would be excellent for bolstering the army and invading neighboring countries.

I imagine a human body will still be cheaper and more agile than robots for a long while.

> I think the economically rational choice is re-education of the group into value-providing employment

I say this who is voluntarily returning to university to pursue a different profession after working 10 years as a software engineer. This isn't going to work for 95% of people, people who have dependents children and partners, mortgages.

> mass extermination of those that refuse

I have no words, but you sound like a dickhead.