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.