> It would be a minority of people who subscribe to philosophies that provide meaning and motivation to life beyond hedonism and material gain.

Hedonism and materialism demand active and social lifestyles. Chasing a different high, the next purchase, the newest model, the next sexual partner, the last in a set, the finest foods, the rarest most limited edition, etc. Part of the fun is showing off, comparing possessions or experiences with others, and learning about what else is still out there.

> The rest will be happy, or at least resigned, to vegetate in endless endorphin loops. It's already visible today, with people of all ages spouting all sorts of hedonistic nihilism to justify not making an effort to improve their condition.

That's a symptom of hopelessness and despair. In the event of a utopia where all our needs are met and we're all able to pursue our own interests to whatever extent we want people will have hope. Living a carefree life like children protected and spoiled by their parents the world will be full endless possibility with the only remaining constraint being that we have only a single lifetime to enjoy it all.

> Picture drug addicts who win the lottery. It won't be pretty

People who are drug addicts don't get clean the moment they win money. Money can make drug treatment more pleasant, but the hardest part is overcoming the learned helplessness and committing to get help. I'd guess that the odds a drug addict lottery winner getting clean aren't that much better or worse than the odds of a drug addict who doesn't win the lottery. People who became addicted looking to self-medicate due to mental illness or trauma don't suddenly have those problems cured when you give them money either. Some lottery winners end up going overboard and gaining addictions they didn't start with (although addictive personalities are more likely to gamble in the first place). Thankfully most people who win the lottery still end up happier and better off.

The truth is that there's no reason think that AI would bring about any kind of utopia for anybody, but if it happened, people will still love the things they love and want the things they want, and share and grow and experiment. No matter what happens, humans won't stop being humans.

> No matter what happens, humans won't stop being humans.

Yes, and humans evolved in an environment of resource scarcity. Literally every instinct we have, including addiction and every psychological condition we categorize as mental illness, is tuned to that.

We are not biologically equipped for a post-scarcity environment, and to thrive in such an environment without destroying it would take a monumental cultural adaptation that not many would be capable of. Children is a bad analogy, because even children have forms of material scarcity guiding them. The reason to grow up at all is to be able to provide for yourself. Everyone is jealous of the "rich kid" in school.

Beyond the theory, see the global transition from hunter gatherer to agriculture. It was insanely violent despite the overall growth in material resources and took thousands of years to truly stabilize into what we'd call civilization, and that civilization was plenty violent all on its own.

Ironically, if we ever did get a material utopia, part of it would have to be manufactured scarcity just so we don't all go insane. And now imagine what the predators amongst us would do in such an environment, their utopia is destruction of others, and they'd have all the resources they'd need to do it.