>>68089
>Are fears about AI taking human jobs legitimate?
Not if the AI's stay subservient, or at least keep a healthy interest in mankind. As we don't know anything about their mindset, we can just ignore this aspect for now. Instead, I will treat AI's, robots, and what else you have the same way as any other kind of automation.
On the free market, automation serves the purpose of making labor more productive. The more automated the economy is, then, the more goods are produced. More automation equals higher standards of living.
So far, this is uncontroversial. The great fear that people have is that most people won't have the money to buy all these goods, though. The idea is that 99% of all people will have their jobs taken by robots and won't have any money left to buy with.
Yet this scenario is unrealistic. It both assumes that everyone will be out of a job and that there will be unfulfilled demand (if the latter condition weren't true, no one would care about these scenarios). In other words, there'd be an oversupply of labor and an undersupply of everything else, which is plainly contradictory, until we bring in some extra assumptions, like that all capital would be owned by the guys that also owned the robots. How would they acquire this monopoly in the first place, why wouldn't they sell any of it afterwards if the price of it became trivial, and why would you put an army of robots to work to produce goods that, by the very assumptions of this scenario, wouldn't be sold to anyone?