For the record, I agree with you but:

>Expert consensus is that it will not in fact change for the better.

Which experts, in what fields, and how were they polled? Can you link something for this? A poll/survey on economists, economic historians, political scientists, political historians, would be solid evidence in your favor.

>There's tons of evidence of companies gearing up literal humanoid robots to replace laborers

Which companies are you talking about here? Are there any recent examples you were thinking of? An economic study or survey on companies or certain industries would be good.

>but not a single country is even talking about labor reform or support for the soon to be billions of unemployed.

This feels really subjective. Andrew Yang has talked about these issues. Bernie Sanders has. Yet, they don't hold much political sway. Does that mean they don't count in "even talking about labor reform" despite being part of a country's government? What counts as a country "talking" about these issues?

I'm willing to bet there's countless examples of individual politicians, specific government organizations, or other such things that showcase some awareness or preparedness. But I agree that it doesn't seem to be a mainstream discussion in the general and political public.

That isn't the concern. The concern is of an autonomous, sentient program deciding to do whatever it pleases, and of it self-improving at an uncontrollable rate.

That's a lot of assumptions, any one of which could turn out to be very shaky. I'm pretty sure 'information' in the context of physics means something very different from how we're using it, and pretty much amounts to fancy math variables used as suppositions to test (also fancy math) hypotheses.

Whatever, maybe I'm wrong.

I'll just throw some hypotheses out instead of committing to any one unknowable position:

1.) We're in a computer simulation

2.) We're all just God having fun, so we placed ourselves at this specific time because it was particularly interesting

3.) This is base reality, it's just that the numbers work out so that being alive at this particular time isn't all that unlikely. One hundred billion humans have lived and died across history, so there's only a ten percent chance (give or take) of being alive around this time.

4.) It's actually 10,000 B.C. You hit your head. This is all just a fancy hallucination. Grug is starting to get very worried.

5.) Reality is a dream manifestation of the will of that consciousness which precedes material existence. Everything you're experiencing was somehow willed into being by your soul and when you die you'll just fabricate another existence that gets you off.

6.) It doesn't matter. You're here now and there's (evidently) nothing that will change that in the immediate moment nor do you have control over it. Just go jerk off and touch some grass. Maybe do both at the same time if it doesn't count as public indecency

Nope. You can feed AI on a hand-picked database of the best of the best of generated images. I'll give an example: generate one hundred thousand images of hands, have one hundred people sort through all of these photos, doing one hundred images a day. Delete any hands that are outright anatomically incorrect. Then, feed this back into the AI until it learns to generate better hands. Repeat this process for anything.

In fact, this is already happening with Midjourney. They track which photos their users select, then they feed those photos right back into the model. Coincidentally, Midjourney v4 is currently regarded as the best image generation model available at the moment. It's considered to be far ahead of the competition at the moment. No points for guessing why.

Lol when has society ever been ready for anything, even itself for that matter