The conceptual beauty of "but they just won't need any people at all"

The conceptual beauty of: "But they just won't need any people at all!"

When we talk about AGI and jobs in the future someone might look at the past history of these things and see that where there has been technological change and people have lost jobs but then just got different jobs so there is overall just as many people in employment before.
The thing that the AGI supporter will say in response is something like that's all very well but if the AI can do anything any human can do then they just won't need any people at all to be employed in jobs.

Not few people - NO people.

The problem here is thinking will you need any people at all?  Will there be anything that you are willing to pay a premium for to have a human do it rather than an intelligent machine and here we need to be thinking not of AGI but AGA which means Artificial General Appearance so that is not so much about the intelligence of the robot but whether it appears as human or not.  So even if an AI can do the intellectual work of a human it won't be able to replace all humans because it won't have the physical appearance of them and appearance matters in many circumstances.

We also need to think about whether the life history of a robot is sufficient for us to get the same thing as we get with a human.  A good example is whether the Pope could be a robot? Could the king of England be a robot?  You might think that those are stupid things anyway but there are many things where the legal and social status of a position precludes an AI being in that position - All politicians for instance.

Secondly even they can solve that one and if you are satisfied to only interact with android robots in your day to day life the question is whether 'they' won't need any people at all for safety reasons.  What about Airforce launch control officers?  Or will we have skynet?  Even for robots to not have control over nuclear weapons we need thousands of people.  Are those people paid more than you?  If so, surely there is competition for those jobs because if you have them you have more control over more resources.

Will the olympics be of robots?  What about professional sports?  If there are still professional sports then there is at least one group of people that earn a lot more than you do and there will be inequality.

Finally there is just about anyone you can think of in the public domain that is famous.  Would you pay a premium to interact with them, or would you prefer to have them with the same abilities in android form?  So here we might think:  Would you prefer to have Bob Dylan sing and play guitar for you or a robot?  It's kind of an obvious choice but what it amounts to is thousands and thousands of people that we 'need' even when AGI can do the work of all humans and naturally the inequality that this creates.  

So we could end up with two classes of people: A mass of people on a UBI and then a tiny elite of people who are able to gather immense wealth and resources.  This has actually happened in human history before through slavery in the Roman empire.  The slaves worked for free and so they just didn't need any citizens at all but there was a tiny wealthy elite who controlled all the resources and to keep those citizens happy had a patronage system and a grain dole and entertainment - bread and circuses.

Overall it looks like them 'not needing any people at all' is bad for most people - not because they won't but the inequality created by the people that they will need.