1h 16mbut in a world where ai does everything - including figuring out how to invest capital optimally - the human owners aren't really contributing anything. the robots will make the same smart investment decisions regardless of whether their owner gets taxed 10% or 90%. you can't "disincentivize" a robot by taxing its owner.
the critic is saying: you're projecting a world where minds run thousands of times faster than ours, where the relevant economic actors might not even be human, and yet you're debating... tax policy? stock certificates? the gini coefficient? it's a bit like medieval peasants arguing about which lord should own the most oxen after the industrial revolution. the entire framework of "ownership" might not translate.
the specific points hit hard: property rights have been reset many times historically, and history will be moving incomprehensibly fast during transition what does human "ownership" even mean when you're economically irrelevant and cognitively outmatched who exactly gets to define what "aligned" means, and to whom human minds are easy to manipulate; how do you remain a meaningful principal when your ai "protector" could trivially deceive you
even as the speed of history increases, in the literal sense that the speed of thought of the actors who produce history will be thousands of times faster, not to mention way smarter. These are agents to whom we seem like toddlers walking in slow motion. It is complete insanity to expect your OAI stock certificates to be worth anything in this world, even if it is compatible with human survival.