We've already established that you were wrong about that as these machines are in commercial deployment.
> Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages.
No, you're wrong. You clearly know nothing about this issue but you continue to double down on it instead of just admitting the examples you came up with were bad. Your whole thesis is that automation cannot be deployed until the resources are available for it. You then expanded this definition of resources from technical capacity and raw resources to basically all aspects of what would make be necessary for a technology to be adopted (institutional capacity, regulatory frameworks, organizational buy-in, etc). That is, the moment a technology is deployed is the moment we have the capacity to deploy it. We know we have the capacity to deploy it when we have deployed it. This is tautological and thus not interesting.
We have the technical capacity to build combine harvesters, yet there are still people toiling in fields because they cannot afford them. The whole argument being made is that the surpluses of this automation are distributed in such a way that they accumulate disproportionately (even exclusively, in the case of user-hostile companies like Microsoft) to equity holders. Your claim is that the only proposed solution to remedy this issue without running into the economic calculation problem is something like Project Cybersyn, when this isn't necessary at all. You can retain market functions while preventing equity holders from running away with the game, and this is done now with estate taxes and used to be done with antitrust enforcement actions.
No there are literally no companies using that sewing robot, you can't buy that shirt.
> No, you're wrong. You clearly know nothing about this issue
You're being very rude, this isn't twitter.
Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics generally prevent adoption. That gets to my whole point.
> The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years.
Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages.
You are clearly misunderstanding me.
> Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.
I didn't make the claim that it didn't happen.
I feel like you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying. These things are hard and rolling them out universally often doesn't work because it is either impractical or economically infeasible to automate things or you run up against regulatory/cultural/material issues. The best we can do is piecemeal progress where incentives align.