#2 doesn't seem talked about much at this point and seems to be pivoting more to #3. #2 never had much of a compelling argument given auditability.
#3 gets mainly ignored due to Luddite assumptions driving it. I'm dubious myself over the short term - humans will have absolute advantage in many fields for a long time (especially with robotics lagging and being costly).
#4 is risky, but humans can adapt. I see collapse as unlikely.
AI doesn’t have to be better at the humans’ job to unemploy them. It’s enough that its output looks presentable enough for advertising most of the time, that it never asks for a day off, never gets sick or retires, never refuses orders, never joins a union…
The capitalist doesn’t really care about having the best product to sell, they only care about having the lowest-cost product they can get away with selling.
There are already AI systems which generate "scores" based on likelyhood to commit another crime (used in parole cases) and likelyhood to be a "good tenant" (used by landlords).
Don't underestimate the difficulty to fix something when the people in charge of that thing do not want it fixed.
Like, the ludicrous part is that sentence - not that it's an AI, but that any system at all is allowed to be implemented like this.
Not to mention the more serious question as to whether it can even be allowed to apply personal penalty based on statistical likelihood like this: i.e. if a recidivism rate from a white-box system was calculated at 70%, does that mean the penalty to be applied to the specific individual under question is justified?
Now that's an actual, complicated question: i.e. while no system based on demographic statistics should be used like that, what about a system based on analysis of the individuals statements and behaviors? When a human makes a judgement call that's what we're actually doing, but how do you codify that in law safely?
Now with this constraint, who is going to be running AI? Large corporations, and do any corporations do stuff for the good of humanity, or is it for the greedy pocketbooks of their investors?
Regulations will be required, but governments tend to lag. Further in the US the corporations will fight tooth and nail to prevent regulations around AI.
1. AI eventually takes control and destroys humans (i.e. the Skynet concern).
2. AI further ingrains already existing societal biases (sexism, racism, etc.) to the detriment of things like fair employment, fair judicial proceedings, etc.
3. AI makes large swaths of humanity unemployable, and we've never been able to design an economic system that can handle that.
4. AI supercharges already widely deployed psyops campaigns for disinformation, inciting division and violence, etc.
The thing I find so aggravating is I see lots of media and self-professed AI experts focused on #1, I see lots of "Ethical AI" people solely focused on #2, but I see comparatively little focus on #3 and #4, which as you say are both happening right now. IMO #3 and #4 are far more likely to result in societal collapse than the first two issues.