> 172. First let us postulate that the computer scientists succeed in developing intelligent machines that can do all things better than human beings can do them. In that case presumably all work will be done by vast, highly organized systems of machines and no human effort will be necessary.

> 174. On the other hand it is possible that human control over the machines may be retained. In that case the average man may have control over certain private machines of his own, such as his car or his personal computer, but control over large systems of machines will be in the hands of a tiny elite-just as it is today, but with two differences. Due to improved techniques the elite will have greater control over the masses; and because human work will no longer be necessary the masses will be superfluous, a useless burden on the system.

I always thought a good addendum to 174 is that the ai will be compelled to generate extremely effective propaganda to convince the non elite that this situation is good.

I'm sure you can come up with something that doesn't involve murdering innocent people

I would sure hope so, but so far I haven't seen anything convincing. The industrial machinery keeps marching on.

At this point I'm predicting that the transition to renewables will fail due to the enormous costs involved (aside from transportation there are also things like converting metal industries to electric), combined with increased EROEI of fossil fuels eventually making extraction too expensive to maintain expected outputs.

It's still somewhat far into the future but it's seems to be happening, which is a comfort from the perspective of Ted's insights, but on the other hand it's not going to be any less violent, even though it would happen as an unintended side effect rather than through conscious effort.

People will once again need to become skillful in multiple areas, compared to the current specialization economy where every person is pretty much useless unless part of the "machinery".

> murdering innocent people

If you are refering to the bombing campaign, that was a publicity campaign for the manifesto, not related to the content of the manifesto.

I don't think the manifesto itself advocated violence.

Indeed.

193. The kind of revolution we have in mind will not necessarily involve an armed uprising against any government. It may or may not involve physical violence, but it will not be a POLITICAL revolution. Its focus will be on technology and economics, not politics.