comment: >
  
  Time is also a limited resource. 
  So is the equipment necessary to run the AI needed to produce that content.
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. >
  
  the luddite argument you’re presenting never pans out in reality >
  
  I'd assume the capitalist model continues and then we'd just have way more jobless and homeless folks cause the companies would rather pay maintenance on machines rather than pay for salaries >
  
  This is exactly what would happen.  OP just can't admit they're wrong and that their idealism and optimism is not based in any reality that we live in. >
  
  To what end? >
  
  Minimize suffering and maximize the ability for individuals to express themselves and experience novel things, something like that. >
  
  One could argue that goal, minimize suffering and maximize experience could be achieved without this.
  But to you, what is suffering and how does AI address? Maybe pick one thing so we’re concise. 
  This will help explain the concept I am referring to. >
  
  Suffering is doing something you don't want to. >
  
  Doing something you don't want to do isn't suffering, it's just either being lazy or unmotivated. I'd argue suffering is having a certain degree of unnecessary pain or stress enacted upon you either from an individual or a system. Would you consider doing the dishes as suffering when compared to a slave being whipped for not performing a task well enough? >
  
  That's the optimistic version.  The more realistic version is that, as automation and AI increases in sophistication, we just see more job loss.  
  Theoretically, something like outsourcing jobs overseas could have meant that we paid less for products or didn't have to work as many hours, or both, but neither happened.  Because the system doesn't work that way. >
  
  This is not a fault of AI or automation but with our underlying capitalism system. Getting rid of jobs is a desirable outcome because this forces the government to consider other options for a sustainable future that isn't driven by profits for the wealthy at the expense of the human race and our planet. >
  
  So you might say the underlying capitalist system is the real bottleneck >
  
  No because capitalism only exist because we have to rely on people to produce. >
  
  So you're talking about a fully automated system ala Wall-E? >
  
  Yes we replace humans with AI and machines to produce instead. My focus here was primarily on the creative side like art, music, movies and games but of course this includes everything in society, so yeah like WALL-E. >
  
  Well that's a whole other thing, I'm not sure how you don't see that.  Using AI to build CGI special effects more efficiently is one thing.  A self-sustaining society run completely by AI in which humans have no interaction (to the point that we don't even need engineers to maintenance any working part of it), is a beyond ridiculous scenario that could only be conceivably believable in a children's movie. >
  
  Sure but we are phased out of these systems over a longer period of time and eventually we might reach something akin to WALL-E. We already have AI that can create human-like voices, art and conversations. >
  
  So your view is that "fully automated luxury communism" is the way forward. Look, I'm not against this, but it is HIGHLY hypothetical. We don't live in a world anywhere near what you're describing, so we have no way of knowing what the pitfalls would be. In WALL-E, for example, so much labor was extracted away that people were locked into their chairs because of their health. I think maybe not having full use of your limbs is a bigger impediment than reliance. >
  
  You're talking about a post-scarcity economy. It's the utopian ideal that some point in the future, people will be able to have whatever they desire as the costs of producing anything will be so small that they won't matter. 
  Ian Banks' Culture books and Star Trek are examples. 
  The fundamental issues with us not hitting a post scarcity economy are that we don't have infinite resources, and that greed still appears to be infinite. A billionaire has no actual need to be a billionaire, but we still have hundreds of them who are degrading the living conditions of hundreds of millions (if not actual billions) of other people, simply so they can have more fun with their toys and projects. >
  
  We don't have infinite resources in the physical world but digital content like movies, games, music, etc... is practically infinite but at this point severely limited due to human reliance in producing that content for us.