[..] requires eating the Sun, and will be feasible at some technology level [..]

Do we have some basic physical-feasibility insights on this or you just speculate?

Indeed the topic I've dedicated the 2nd part of the comment, as the "potential truth" how I framed it (and I have no particular objection to you making it slightly more absolutist).

This is interesting! And given you generously leave it rather open as to how to interpret it, I propose we should think the other way round than people usually might tend to, when seeing such results:

I think there's not even the slightest hint at any beyond-pure-base-physics stuff going on in LLMs revealing even any type of

phenomenon that resists [conventional] explanation

Instead, this merely reveals our limitations of tracking (or 'emphasizing with') well enough the statistics within the machine. We know we have just programmed and bite-by-bite-trained into it exactly every syllable the LLM utters. Augment your brain with a few extra neurons or transistors or what have you, and that smart-enough version of you would be capable of perfectly understanding why in response to the training you gave it, it spits out exactly the words it does.^[1]

So, instead, it's interesting the other way round:

Realizations you describe could be a step closer to showing how a simple pure basic machine can start to be 'convinced' it has intrinsic value and so on -  just the way we all are convinced of having that.

So AI might eventually bring illusionism nearer to us, even if I'm not 100% sure getting closer to that potential truth ends well for us. Or that, anyway, we'd really be able to fully buy into the it even if it were to become glaringly obvious to any outsider observing us.

1. ^{^}

   Don't misread that as me saying it's anyhow easy... just, in the limit, basic (even if insanely large scale and convoluted maybe) tracking of the mathematics we put in would really bring us there. So, admittedly, don't take literally 'a few' more neurons to help you, but instead a huge ton..

Indeed. I though it to be relatively clear with "buy" I meant to mostly focus on things we typically explicitly buy with money (for brevity even for these I simplified a lot, omitting that shops are often not allowed to open 24/7, some things like alcohol aren't sold to people of all ages, in some countries not sold in every type of shop, and/or or not at all times).

Although I don't want to say that exploring how to port the core thought to broader categories of exchanges/relationships couldn't bring interesting extra insights.

I cannot say I've thought about it deep enough, but I've thought and written a bit about UBI, taxation/tax competition and so on. My imagination so far is:

A. Taxation & UBI would really be natural and workable, if we were choosing the right policies (though I have limited hope our policy making and modern democracy is up to the task, especially also with the international coordination required). Few subtleties that come to mind:

1. Simply tax high revenues or profits.
   1. No need to tax "AI (developers?)"/"bots" specifically.
   2. In fact, if AIs remain rather replicable/if we have many competing instances: Scarcity rents will be in raw factors (e.g. ores and/or land) rather than the algorithms used to processing them
2. UBI to the people.
3. International tax (and migration) coordination as essential.
   1. Else, especially if it's perfectly mobile AIs that earn the scarcity rents, we end up with one or a few tax havens that amass & keep the wealth to them
   2. If you have good international coordination, and can track revenues well, you may use very high tax rates, and correspondingly spread a very high share of global value added with the population.
4. If specifically world economy will be dominated by platform economies, make sure we deal properly with it, ensuring there's competition instead of lock-in monopoly
   1. I.e. if, say, we'd all want to live in metaverses, avoid everyone being forced to live in Meta's instead of choosing freely among competing metaverses.

Risks include:

1. Expect geographic revenue distribution to be foreign to us today, and potentially more unequal with entire lands with zero net contribution in terms of revenue-earning value added
   1. Maybe ores (and/or some types of land) will capture the dominant share of value added, not anymore the educated populations
   2. Maybe instead it's a monopoly or oligopoly, say with huge shares in Silicon Valley and/or its Chinese counterpart or what have you
   3. Inequality might exceed today's: Today poor people can become more attractive by offering cheap labor. Tomorrow, people deprived of valuable (i) ores or so, or (ii) specific, scarcity-rent earning AI capabilities, may be able to contribute zero, so have zero raw earnings
2. Our rent-seeking economic lobbies who successfully put their agents at top policy-makers in charge, and who lead us to voting for antisocial things, will have ever stronger incentive to keep rents for themselves. Stylized example: We'll elect the supposedly-anti-immigration populist, but whose main deed is to make sure firms don't pay high enough taxes
3. You can more easily land-grab than people-grab by force, so may expect military land conquest to become more a thing than in the post-war decades where minds seemed the most valuable thing
4. Human psychology. Dunno what happens with societies with no work (though I guess we're more malleable, able to evolve into a society that can cope with it, than some people think, tbc)
5. Trade unions and alike, trying to keep their jobs somehow, and finding pseudo-justifications for it, so the rest of society lets them do that.

B. Specifically to your following point:

I don't think the math works out if / when AI companies dominate the economy, since they'll capture more and more of the economy unless tax rates are high enough that everyone else receives more through UBI than they're paying the AI companies.

Imagine it's really at AI companies where the scarcity rents i.e. profits, occur (as mentioned, that's not at all clear): Imagine for simplicity all humans still want TVs and cars, maybe plus metaverses, and AI requires Nvidia cards. By scenario definition, AI produces everything, and as in this example we assume it's not the ores that earn the scarcity rents, and the AIs are powerful in producing stuff from raw earth, we don't explicitly track intermediate goods other than Nvidia cards the AIs produce too. Output be thus:

AI output = 100 TVs, 100 cars, 100 Nvidia cards, 100 digital metaverses, say in $bn.

Taxes = Profit tax = 50% (could instead call it income tax for AI owners; in reality would all be bit more complex, but overall doesn't matter much).

AI profit 300 ( = all output minus the Nividia cards)
People thus get $150bn; AI owners get $150bn as distributed AI profit after taxes
People consume 50 TVs, 50 cars, 50 digital metaverses
AI owners also consume 50 TVs, 50 cars, 50 digital metaverses

So you have a 'normal' circular economy that works. Not so normal, e.g. we have simplified for AI to require not only no labor but also no raw resources (or none with scarcity rent captured by somebody else). You can easily extend it to more complex cases.

In reality, of course, output will be adjusted, e.g. with different goods the rich like to consume instead of thousands of TVs per rich person, as happens already today in many forms; what the rich like to do with the wealth remains to be seen. Maybe fly around (real) space. Maybe get better metaverses. Or employ lots of machines to improve their body cells.

C. Btw, the "we'll just find other jobs" imho is indeed overrated, and I think the bias, esp. among economists, can be very easily explained when looking at history (where these economists had been spot on) yet realizing, that in future, machines will not anymore augment brains but replace them instead.

I find things as "Gambling Self-Exclusion Schemes" of multiple countries, thanks for the hint, indeed a good example, corroborating that at least in some of the most egregious examples of addictive goods unleashed on the population some action in in the suggested direction is technically & politically feasible - how successful tbc; looking fwd to looking into it in more detail!

Depends on what we call super-dumb - or what where we draw the system borders of "society". I include the special interest groups as part of our society; and are the small wheel in it gearing us towards the 'dumb' outcome in the aggregate. But yes, the problem is simply not trivial, smart/dumb is too relative, so my term was not useful (just expressing my frustration with our policies & thinking, that your nice post reminded me of)

This is a good topic for exploration, though I don't have much belief that there's any feasible implementation "at a societal level".   

Fair. I have instead the impression I see plenty of avenues. Bit embarrassingly: they are so far indeed not sufficiently structured in my head, require more detailed tinkering out, exploring failure modes and avenues for addressing in detail, plus they might, require significant restructuring of the relevant markets, and, worst, I have insufficient time to explore them in much detail quite now). But yes, it would remain to be shown & tested-out as mentioned in the post, and I hope I once can explore/write about it a bit more. For now my ambition is: Look, that is indeed a serious topic to explore; we should at least be aware of the possibility to upgrade people's liberty by providing them 'only' alienable instead of inalienable rights to buy or consume. And start looking around as to what we might be able to do..

There are plenty of options at individual levels, mostly informal - commitments to friends and family, writing down plans and reviewing them later, etc.

An indicator of how good we are by using the "options at individual level" is how society looks; as explained, it doesn't look good (though, as caveat-ed in the post, admittedly I cannot say how much of what seems to be addressable by commitment is indeed solely commitment failure; though there is imho plenty of indirect and anecdotal evidence suggesting it contributes a sizeable junk of it).

It's not clear at all why we would, in principle, enforce the wishes of one part of someone onto another part.

"in principle" right, in practice I think it's relatively simple. Nothing is really simple, but:

• I think we could quite easily pull out of our hands (not meant as derogatory as it sounds) a bit of analytical theoreming to show under reasonably general conditions fitting some of the salient facts about our 'short-term misbehavior', the great benefits, say in medium- & and long-term aggregate utility or something, even when strongly discounted if you wish, of reigning in our short-term self. Discuss under what conditions the conclusion holds, then take away: without crazy assumptions, we often see benefits from supporting not short-termie. I actually think we might even find plenty of existing theory of commitment, discounting etc., doing just that or things close to doing just that.
• I can personally not work on that in detail atm, though, and I think in practice the case appears so blatantly obvious when looking a ton of stylized facts (see post where I mention only few most obvious ones) in that domain that it's worthwhile to start thinking about markets differently now, to start searching for solutions, while some shiny theoretical underpinning remain still pending.
• Moreover, I think we societally already accept the case for that thing.
  • For example, I think paternalistic policies might have much a harder time to force or press us into, say, saving for later (or maybe also into not smoking by prohibitions or taxes etc.) if it wasn't for many of us to silently agree that actually we're happy for state to force us (or even the dear ones around us) to do something that actually part of us internally (that is of course long-termie) prefers while short-termie might just blow it instead.
  • In that paternalistic domain we currently indeed mainly rely on (i) external coercion and officially explain it as (ii) "state has to clean up if I get old, that's why he forces me to save for pension", but note how we already have some policies that may even more specifically be best be explained by implicitly acknowledging superiority of long-term self: While multiple compulsory pension schemes keep me save by covering my basic old age expenses, the state strongly incentivizes me to do voluntary pension contributions beyond what's necessary to cover my basic living costs. If we wouldn't, in practice, as a society, somehow agree with the idea that long-termie should have more of a say than he naturally has, I think it could be particularly difficult to get society to just stand by while I 'evade' taxes by using that scheme.^[1]

1. ^{^}

   That voluntary savings scheme incentivizes the saving-until-retirement by removing earnings & wealth taxes. It is on top of the compulsory schemes that are meant to cover basic living costs while at age (this has become a bit harder today but used to be, I think, simpler in the past when the voluntary policy also existed already).

Spot on! Let's zoom out and see we have (i) created a never before seen food industry that could feed us healthily at unprecedentedly low cost, yet (ii) we end up systematically killing us with all that. We're super dumb as society to continue doing as if nothing, nothing on a societal level, had to be done.

Btw, imho a more interesting, but not really much more challenging, extension of your case is, if overall what the orphans produce is actually very valuable, say creating utility of 500 $/day for ultimate consumers, but mere market forces, competition between the firms or businessmen, means market prices for the goods produced become still only 50.01c/day, while the labor market clearing wage for the destitute orphans is 50c/day.

Even in this situation, commonsense 'exploitation' is straightforward applicable and +- intelligible a concept:

1. To a degree, the firms or businessmen become a bit irrelevant intermediaries. One refuses to do the trade? Another one will jump in anyway... Are they exploitative or not? Depends a bit on subtle details, but individually they have little leeway to change anything in the system.
2. The rich society as an aggregate who enjoys the 500 $/day worth items as consumers, while having, via their firms, had them produced for 50.01c/day by the poor orphans with no outside options, is of course an exploitative society in common usage of the term. Yes, the orphans may be better off than without it, but commoners do have an uneasy feeling if they see our society doing that, and I don't see any surprise in it; indeed, we're a 'bad' society if we just leave it like that and don't think about doing something more to improve the situation.
   1. The fact that some in society take the wrong conclusion from the feeling of unease about exploitation, and think we ought to stop buying the stuff from the orphans, is really not the 'fault' of the exploitation concept, it is the failure of us to imagine (or be willing to bite the bullet of) a beyond-the-market solution, namely the bulk sharing of riches with those destitute orphan workers or what have you. (I actually now wonder whether that may be where the confusion that imho underlies the OP's article is coming from: Yes, people do take weird econ-101-igoring conclusions when they detect exploitation, but this doesn't mean they interpret the wrong things as exploitation. It means their feel-good 'solution' might backfire; instead they should track consequences of alternatives and see that the real solution to the indeed existing exploitation problem isn't as simple as to go to the next, overpriced pseudo-local pseudo-sustainable hipster shop, but is to start doing something more directly about the sheer poverty of their fellow beings far or near).