Well, I do remain hopeful that we will reach an inflexion point at which such technologies will make labor immensely cheap. If you think about the very basic requirements for having ever increasing population and GDP: you need young people to keep your factories running, working your farms and running your investment funds etc. Once most of these things are automated, labor productivity would have reached the point where there won't be a need for ever-expanding population to achieve the same standard of life.
And the problem isn't keeping GDP growing, it is growing it enough to pay for spending obligations.
And we sort of obviously don't have resource problems, we have a problem with matching supply and demand.
The likely fix is rampant inflation. Erases debt, erases the value of property relative to wages, etc.
Unfortunately that mostly means that our kids will likely have it worse, not better. Starting with baby boomers we simply had too few children to keep growing GDP. GDP, and economic activity in general shows a remarkable and extremely direct relation to two things : total amount of energy used, and total amount of people. For the first time in over 70 years, both are stagnating, slowly.
And it's too late : to fix the population growth rate, gen X should have been having lots of kids one to two decades ago, and that has decidedly not happened. For the foreseeable future, we'll have to do more with less, both in terms of energy, but especially in terms of labor available.
You might say "but machine learning", "but robots", etc. Well that's exactly what they said in the 80s with the car plant closings. That was patently false. Then they said it again with Japan crashing and then stagnating. Again, not true. Now we're saying it about ourselves (but doubly so for China). I don't think this time it will be right either.