These arguments always use solid logical arguments but stop once they reach doomsday. Let's say everything is right, and machines can automate 60-70% of the workforce. With unemployment at those numbers, what will people be consuming? What will machines be producing if there are no consumers? What will the people be doing if there are no jobs? Will the masses roll over and give up on labor? Will they allow the world's finances to stagnate in the bank accounts of the machine owners while they live in total poverty? In a different vein, these arguments don't give a lot of credit to human beings. Is all that we want in life efficiency? Do we only care about simulations of reality? To say that machines can replace every single aspect of humanity is to say that we are nothing but biological machines. It is to say that there is nothing metaphysical in the connection between two people, that it's just two stock programs executing lines of code. If that's the case, if the world is so cold and logical, why do these people sing this song as a dirge? Shouldn't this be a holy hymn, that we are doing great works in the world by making a more efficient version of ourselves that will fulfill our mechanical niche better than we ever could? Would they be embracing that? If we are not special, as the speaker claims, then why does it matter if we are made obsolete? And that's the core of the problem with her argument - either we are not special and so she has no right to say we should seek refuge from this mechanical evolution, or she is saying we are special and that no matter how many jobs are made obsolete, there is something inherent in us that prevents us as individuals from being obsolete. That's my rant, at least.
The thing that is interesting about this argument is that it is the same argument that people have had since the rise of the Industrial Revolution 400 years ago. It crops up at least once a generation. Malthus thought that we were heading to a population crisis and advocated for what we now call eugenics to solve the "poor problem" of his time. At the time we was alive, there were fewer than a billion humans alive. As anyone who has worked on a big project can attest to, the first 90% of the work is easy and goes quickly. That last 10% to complete the work is full of unforeseen issues, problems, disasters and other bits of fun and excitement. I was told that 90% of your budget is spent in the last 10% of the job, and I guess this is a good rule of thumb to go by. As stated below, computers and machinery do some things much better than humans will ever be able to do. And there are some things that humans will always do better (language and interpreters for example are based as much on facial and body language as much as the words themselves). Computers are creating whole new industries that we are not able to see right now. 3D printing is going to destabilize whole industries and economies while creating millionaires who are able to look at this and say 'this solves a need that is not being met." Cars created a need for malls and big box stores, diesel engines made transporting cheaper and more reliable, computers have made just about everything cheaper, better, stronger. The worst case scenario that I see is that there will be a further decoupling (love that word!) of productivity and salary causing a drop in consumer demand due to less cash to spend on stuff. Land and real estate will continue to soar in cities as real physical goods are something that everyone understands and cannot really be created. But people can only pay $4000 a month for an apartment in San Francisco for so long before they go "Fuck everything about this, I'll go make 100K a year less and live in a house on 3 acres in Nashville." It is going to take time, but the adjustment is coming.Let's say everything is right, and machines can automate 60-70% of the workforce.