This is the same tired doctrine dragged out of the Keynesian attic—dress it in silicon and call it progress.
In the 1930s and 40s, the prophets of mechanisation made identical promises: machines would produce abundance beyond measure, labour would fade, and leisure would become the human condition. We were told productivity would liberate mankind. Instead, what followed was not emancipation, but bureaucracy, dependency, and an ever-expanding apparatus designed to “manage” the surplus it never quite trusted individuals to handle.
Now the script is recycled. Replace “industrial machinery” with “AI,” and the chorus resumes: limitless goods, effortless living, and—naturally—a central authority distributing stipends like a benevolent landlord.
The premise is false at its root. Automation does not eliminate human purpose; it shifts it. It does not render society idle; it reallocates effort into new domains of value creation. The idea that entire populations become economically obsolete is not an economic conclusion—it is a failure of imagination.
And yet, rather than allowing markets to adapt and individuals to create, the solution offered is once again dependency dressed as security. Print, distribute, pacify.
One would think a century of evidence might inspire caution. Instead, the instinct is repetition—repeat the error, scale the system, and call it inevitable.
No. Discard the premise. AI will not replace everyone, nor will it usher in some frictionless utopia managed by cheque. It will do what every technological advance has done: create disruption, opportunity, and the necessity for adaptation.
The rest is fantasy—expensive, coercive, and all too familiar.