[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  David Shapiro ⏩ [@DaveShapi](/creator/twitter/DaveShapi) on x 44.4K followers Created: 2025-07-17 11:02:29 UTC Finally, someone starts speaking sense. Here's why this intuition could be true: attractor states. Under a conventional consumerist/capitalist regime (where everyone needs a JOB to get by) we are intrinsically constrained by the number of humans who are qualified to do certain kinds of work - frontier physics, chemistry, etc. But ask yourself: "what is the optimal number of Einsteins and Curies and Turings for humanity?" The answer "a helluva lot more than we've got!" Thus, our "intelligence optimum" for humanity is to have functionally infinite super-geniuses in the form of machine intelligence (they are far more scalable and repeatable than we are). With higher saturation of super-intelligence, more problems become tractable. Whatever the maximum carrying capacity of Earth is, we're not going to get there without a lot more brainpower solving energy, climate, and food. It's not even a matter of "managing and allocating resources" in some Star Trek fantasy. To redistribute hyper-abundance, you first need to achieve hyper-abundance (duh). Allocating hyper-abundance is the easy part. Building it, on the other hand, not so easy. Now, if we can get to the point where Ilya Sutskever's brain looks like a toaster oven compared to AI, do you think we'll need "JOBS"? Hell no. The eradication of jobs comes part and parcel with the cognitive hyper-abundance we're aiming for. Plain and simple.  XXXXXX engagements  [Post Link](https://x.com/DaveShapi/status/1945801275591082449)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
David Shapiro ⏩ @DaveShapi on x 44.4K followers
Created: 2025-07-17 11:02:29 UTC
Finally, someone starts speaking sense.
Here's why this intuition could be true: attractor states.
Under a conventional consumerist/capitalist regime (where everyone needs a JOB to get by) we are intrinsically constrained by the number of humans who are qualified to do certain kinds of work - frontier physics, chemistry, etc.
But ask yourself: "what is the optimal number of Einsteins and Curies and Turings for humanity?"
The answer "a helluva lot more than we've got!"
Thus, our "intelligence optimum" for humanity is to have functionally infinite super-geniuses in the form of machine intelligence (they are far more scalable and repeatable than we are).
With higher saturation of super-intelligence, more problems become tractable. Whatever the maximum carrying capacity of Earth is, we're not going to get there without a lot more brainpower solving energy, climate, and food. It's not even a matter of "managing and allocating resources" in some Star Trek fantasy. To redistribute hyper-abundance, you first need to achieve hyper-abundance (duh). Allocating hyper-abundance is the easy part. Building it, on the other hand, not so easy.
Now, if we can get to the point where Ilya Sutskever's brain looks like a toaster oven compared to AI, do you think we'll need "JOBS"? Hell no.
The eradication of jobs comes part and parcel with the cognitive hyper-abundance we're aiming for.
Plain and simple.
XXXXXX engagements
