> If it can be controlled then it will concentrate power like never before, and I believe this will destabilise civilisation.

We already live in a reality with unprecedented concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the very few. This process has produced horrific violence and ended civilization for tens of millions.

The actual impact of AI, so far, has been redistributive upwards (solely through speculation, not via productivity or displacement).

This kind of problem is a standard human social ill. Its solution is social too.

Redistributive economic and political action can equalize power and wealth disparity. AI is incidental in this story.

Your understanding of AI as an isolated perfected intellectual djinn lacks a consideration of the existing and ever-changing labour and social relations that give AI responses meaning in the first place.

It is a compressed, multi dimensional manifold containing the structure of relations between objects. Responses are a reification of a point in that space.

Navigating the space can be interesting, but it is a poor substitute for the relations themselves.

Very few people yearn for the endless, frictionless solipsism silicon valley promises (AI + slave robots), and those that do are overrepresented in your social circles. The books they write are a study in psychological projection and limited political education.

> I've been writing endless comments more recently urging people worrying about their jobs/careers to stop and just spend the next few years with those they love.

This is good advice generally. But it isn't organizing. Join something, meet up, drink bad coffee, listen, take notes, advocate to fix just one bad thing in your community, feel your impact reverberate through the world, and then notice how much easier it is to shake off despair.

If you don't have a community, then no wonder everything feels like its ending.