No modern (say, since bronze-age collapse) equilibrium yet has been stable over very long terms. The ones which have lasted more than half a dozen generations weren't terribly pleasant for the majority of participants.
Of course, "the market will figure it out" is almost tautologically true. WHAT it figures out is the question.
Maybe the answer is something like "UBI co-op"? If the mostly 99% non-capitalist class bands together in some voluntary alliance where the cumulative wealth is invested in running one of these AI empires in their benefit and split up in some proportion?
Seems potentially promising, but may face the challenges of historical co-ops. Haven't thought enough, but it's all I've got for now.
I think unemployment benefits and stimulus checks will turn into a pseudo UBI as the Fed/government are forced to print money to offset the massive deflation caused by unemployment.
Suppose we work hard and get a stroke of luck and unaligned AI isn't a problem.
What does society look like when human-level and super-intelligent AIs can be spun up and work way cheaper than humans do?
I'm in a bit of an existential void right now, because I can't see any future other than mass wealth concentration, UBI for 99% of people (if they can get it and keep it, which is iffy, since they will have no political power), and potentially depopulation (e.g. one child policies, higher UBIs for sterilization, etc).
I've had answers to previous such questions, like "the market will figure it out", and historically, it has, because intelligence has always been something that humans can add to a production process. But when we're totally and strictly inferior, what happens? What livable, corner of existence can the vast majority of people who do not own plots of large natural resources carve for themselves to lead meaningful lives?
I'm especially focused on stable, long-term equilibrium outcomes. Answers like "well, we'll all be rich!" ring hollow, because when you zoom into who will be rich and how, the answer doesn't seem to be "all of us", but rather a relatively small group of people/corporations who spin up the AIs and own protectable natural resources. Even "we'll all be on UBI" is questionable, because why would the owners of the resources choose to support 99% of the world? Especially in the long term, when they can instead choose (non-violent) depopulation options.
Sorry for the gloom, but would love to see previous work on this :)