You're describing the thesis of the 1930s Techocracy movement [0], of which AI maximallism and EA are direct ideological successors. The original Technocrats (Musks grandpa for example [1]) argued that the "Price System", i.e. things like money and private ownership was an inefficient bottleneck that aught to be discarded in favour of scientific planning and energy accounting managed by technical experts.

EA-aligned AI labs share this exact ethos. In their view, fiat money and equity markets are merely temporary scaffolding used to raise capital until AGI is achieved. Once a central superintelligence controls manufacturing, software, and logistics, resource distribution shifts from market supply-and-demand to algorithmic optimization.

[0] https://digital.library.cornell.edu/catalog/ss:34227574

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joshua_N._Haldeman?hl=en-GB

▲

howunfortunate 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is the plot of one of the stories in I, Robot.

AI oracles are the central economic planners. But after years of perfection they have made a couple unusual "mistakes" and a human is trying to discover why.

▲

suddenlybananas 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If we end up having a centrally planned economy but controlled by billionaires instead of the proletariat, it would be quite upsetting.

	▲	Refreeze5224 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		How is that any different than what we already have? Just because the central planning is more covert, doesn't mean it's not happening. And we get all the expected "benefits" from it too, like repeated economic crises, and only the the powerful reaping the benefits.