comment: >
  
  the luddite argument you’re presenting never pans out in reality
context: If I understand you correctly, you are using the term 'human reliance' to mean our dependence on other people to do things for us. I can see that this can be a constraint, but it seems hard to consider it the largest barrier. 
  For a start, billions of people live under various forms of political and social repression. Being disappeared for criticising the Great Leader, executed for being gay or jailed because you couldn't afford to bribe a police officer are all bigger impediments to personal freedom than needing to hire a voice actor for your indie video game project.
  It also strikes me that accepting some dependence can, counter-intuitively, make make a person freer. A subsistence farmer is probably pretty independent, by your standard. He grows his own food from seeds he produced, sources his own water and probably maintains his own dwelling and tools to a large degree. Entire weeks may pass without him needing to call on anyone else to support his lifestyle. Compare that to an office worker who spends her time providing highly specialised labour and depends entirely on others to give her the means to meet her daily needs. 
  Yet the farmer has almost no options in life. He depends entirely on planting specific crops on particular patch of land at the times the climate dictates. He has few options to improve his standard of living, doesn't get to travel and has few resources with which to pursue personal fulfillment. The office worker, by contrast, has far more flexibility and much greater resources at her disposal. These give her a real choice about were to live, how to make a living and what to do with her free time. Do you really think the farmer is freer, despite having far fewer options? >
  
  I see where you are coming from but this is incorrect. The farmer you speak of do not represent my idea because my claim is that AI will do everything for us, the farmer wouldn't maintain his own plants, etc... in fact he wouldn't even be a farmer, robots would do that kind of work and AI would oversee it. 
  In the creative fields the AI would be producing the content for us to enjoy, you only tell it what you want to experience. >
  
  The difference in standards of life and well-being between the farmer and the office worker will almost certainly be greater than between the office worker and someone in the same financial situation who doesn't need a job. And I'd continue to suggest that an office worker in a functioning liberal democracy is better of and more free than someone who's basic need are met by a corrupt, totalitarian government. >
  
  The difference between a person that has to stress about work for 40 hours a week their entire life and a person that can live with the same living standards without having to work at all is equally great as the difference between being a farmer or an office worker in a capitalist system. >
  
  You honestly believe that having to spend a quarter of your time during the middle two thirds of your life performing boring, occasionally stressful, but not especially demanding tasks is so awful that it's remotely comparable being a subsistence farmer? To spending every day performing hard labour, knowing that if the weather is bad, you and your family will die unless you get lucky and have a chance to sell one of your children? >
  
  
  The conclusion to all of this is that the more automation you have the greater our individual freedom is to express ourselves and experience new things in life and it ought to expand into most if not every part of society when the time is right so we can produce anything we desire ourselves be it videogames, movies, music, conversations, voices, applications and so forth.
  
  Except the more that automation pushes people out of jobs, the harder it is to have the money and resources to "produce anything we desire".  Tough to be an artist with expensive materials to buy when you can't even afford groceries. >
  
  Yes but this is not an issue of AI and automation but with the underlying economical system that is capitalism. What I'm suggesting is only highlighting this unsustainable foundation which clearly must make way for a more efficient economical system that benefit and provide for the collective rather than the wealthy few. >
  
  So it's a purely hypothetical that ignores the way the world currently functions? >
  
  My claim was that having to rely on other people is one of the greatest limits to our individual freedom, that's all. You are arguing against our current economical model, not my claim. >
  
  
  My claim was that having to rely on other people is one of the greatest limits to our individual freedom
  
  I disagree.
  If I didn't have other people to rely on, my life would be an endless endeavor to grow and hunt food, find shelter, fashion protective clothing, perform healthcare tasks, and generally stay alive.  
  Relying on others is what allows me the freedom to pursue things I desire.  Precisely the opposite of your claim. >
  
  Yes but you are neglecting the basis for my argument which is AI and automation. My claim is that you replace those people with machines and AI to produce for us be it food, shelter or entertainment, right? >
  
  
  My claim is that you replace those people with machines and AI to produce for us be it food, shelter or entertainment, right?
  
  And then we lose our jobs and can't afford to pursue pleasurable nonessential hobbies, which is going back to "isn't this just a huge hypothetical"?  And the answer is back to being "yes, this is a huge hypothetical, because that is not the way the world operates".  Your view is not grounded in reality.