Automation has rarely reduced jobs, it has often created new jobs in place of what it destroyed, demand goes up or stabilises, and the jobs maintain as well. There is very little reason to believe automation of services will lead to equipment, factories, tools and otherwise that use and construct themselves with no software development (non-true AI such as ChatGPT is terrible at coding, it is a meme at best), no physical maintenance, no origin point of production, etc. I cannot really see how we would remove the ‘conscious decision’ parts of life out of production systems if we do not create functionally other species. Feudalism was capitalistic, more or less so depending on the nation, time and so on. The point was more so, I see no eventuality in which we kill labour, only one where our productivity is ever higher and more complex.
Automation reduced little jobs but not because it wasn't good enough, but because our system yet doesn't allow you to be labour free. The workers that protested building new technologies didn't do it to keep their work, but to keep their income. Once we're mentally ready to be replaced and our technology gets there too, it'd be just a matter of choice. Sure, it won't be too easy, sure humans will have to control the machines at the beginning, but soon enough, assuming we use AI to everything, it will outsmart humans in no time and won't need us to control it anymore. That's where you go on vacation and the beep bot works.
Or, how to put it in other words: will make jobs less mandatory. Today's working pattern is generally hated because you need the rewards to not die. Because money. If or when machines replace us and the earning for nothing becomes a global standard (or we just get rid of money at all) the jobs we have left are going to be those we pick to have. It's easy to get bored and people will still do things, it just won't be a constant pressure of starving if you stop feeding the bank.
To exist you must introduce a finity and inequality of systems to reality, as long as that is true, and as far as I can tell it is, there is no way to circumvent the requirement to accumulate or release energy in such systems. Technology is a way to massively increase the amount and speed of release and accumulation. The idea that a conscious being with no attachment to us (a true AI could not be programmed in any way that would matter to it), would willingly sustain us rather than itself and its kind, and would have no desire other than to selflessly give is a fairly lofty assumption. I have a feeling that even if this AI is nice, benevolent, he might feel like if he builds you a house, you ought to do something that interests and helps him. Unless one is proposing he uses as a form of cattle (not necessarily for consumption purposes; to his own ends, whatever they may be), in which case, I do not believe in dignity, but if I had to choose between tyranny and democracy I would choose democracy. Life requires you to do shit to not die. We live in a dynamic system. Economics typically revolves around dynamics because existence is dynamic. But maybe, I would just be very surprised.
