Could advanced AI really make most people disposable?

The leap from “AI may change work” to “elites will eliminate people” is not supported by the argument itself. It assumes a coordinated plan, that nearly everyone will become economically useless, and that political institutions will simply stop responding. Those are separate claims, not established consequences of AI progress.

It is fair to worry about concentrated power and people losing income or influence. Those risks can be discussed without treating a mass-elimination plot as fact. I’d look for verifiable evidence for each claim rather than letting a dramatic prediction stand in for it.

Even if automation reduces demand for some kinds of labor, that does not make people “useless.” People need care, housing, food, and a say in the rules. Governments and institutions face pressure from those needs, and the choices they make about taxes, services, and ownership are political choices, not automatic outcomes of technology.

There is no guaranteed fix, and support systems can be inadequate. But that is a reason to pay attention to policy and accountability, not proof that a population is about to be removed.

The resource argument also gets treated as if energy and other limits have only one possible answer. Constraints can be real, but they do not by themselves show what societies will choose or who will bear the costs. Claims about population-wide life extension and AI enhancement are also forecasts, not established facts.

I’d separate the practical questions, like energy use and job disruption, from the much bigger claim about a planned new civilization. The first set can be examined; the second needs evidence of its own.