>If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.

Can you please not be intellectually dishonest? I don't agree with his endorsement of socialism but don't pull a Trump and try to twist his words.

Hawkings doesn't use big words, but in the end, it does amount to "we should be afraid of Capitalism, not Robots".

What do you think "the machine-owners […] lobby against wealth redistribution" means? Machine owners are obviously the capitalists, who own the means of production. And they do currently lobby against wealth redistribution. It's only natural: they have wealth and power, they intend to keep it.

Linkbait, sure. But I don't see any misrepresentation of Hawkins' words here.

(Edit: Of course, I'm not talking about strong AI here, which is obviously much more dangerous if realised. I'm imagining dumb stuff like the Star Trek replicator.)

In other countries, there are dictators or "ruling parties" instead of capitalists, and they will create exactly the same problem. He's right, this is not about capitalism at all.

Whatever. Those ruling parties still control the means of production just like our western capitalists do. The way they hold their power over people is just more obvious.

Besides, those countries don't dominate the world and impose their ways on the rest of the world. Capitalists countries like the USA, Russia, and China do.