at the limit, the threat of civil unrest compels even reluctant capital owners to share the gains of automation
Or make robot armies to keep us in line. This is extreme of course, but there's a spectrum of such things (AI-powered lobbying, robot police, maybe coopting part of the population, and so on). If the masses of people become irrelevant both economically and militarily, they will also become irrelevant politically, or at least the force of history will pull very strongly in that direction.
I think this is the main point that most people thinking about this miss, maybe because it's just so nasty to imagine. No solution comes to mind at all, except the hard solution of building a worldwide popular movement right now, while the masses of people still have some power.
restrict AI to a handful of countries + create UBI within these countries
Strictly speaking, Plan A claimed that "humanity delays the development of superintelligence until 2040, makes all AI research public, allows dozens of companies globally to catch up to the frontier, and intentionally enters a regime of mutually assured compute destruction." Additionally, the only reason why the Citizen's Dividend is smaller for non-Americans than for Americans is plausibility, as the authors describe in the Appendix.
Yeah, sorry, I edited my comment to remove that point before I saw your reply. Though that said, I think "Plan A" is bad for other reasons.
After 25+ years, I thought I try something new. I find the public and professional discussion about the future of Jobs in light of AGI jarring, with both sides largely missing the point (don't worry novel jobs will appear vs mass unemployed dystopia). My new book
shows why a Job-Less future is desirable, affordable, and likely.
The book develops the case along thirteen theses:
(see website discounts; contact me for a free review copy)