You are correct, edited to clarify that this is not consensus.

Exactly, it's not just a matter of software architecture, but also of preexisting optimised libraries, hardware acceleration, economic incentives, funding. Very hard to predict how it will end up.

Some thoughts and then some references to neuro-symbolic approaches:

The reality is that AGI has become (always been?) an engineering problem [For intellectual honesty: this is not consensus, e.g. among neuroscientists. See comments below]. Many times in the past we have seen less theoretically scalable methods outperform more principles ones, so nobody can predict which one will win in the short term. LLMs are promising since they can leverage all the hardware acceleration and the pre-existing work of different fields (NLP, Computer Vision, RL). So it may very well be that DL will be enough to achieve great results and more investment and optimisation will pile-in, making symbolic approaches comparatively less attractive to fund in the short term.

Who knows, maybe the right symbolic architecture has already been proposed 20-30 years ago and nobody took the effort to put into a modern GPU accelerated codebase.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.05876 Neurosymbolic AI: The 3rd Wave

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.05330 Neuro-Symbolic Artificial Intelligence: Current Trends

https://arxiv.org/abs/2002.00388 A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation, Acquisition and Applications

Both are happening, but dangerous jobs automation get less news coverage.

As other commenters said, it is very likely to be painful, since politicians needs votes to be elected and this is associated to creating (bullshit) jobs.

Here's a proposal to handle the transition and soften the blow coming from automation: https://lorenzopieri.com/post_scarcity/

It is also called Simplicity Assumption, see here: The Simplicity Assumption and Some Implications of the Simulation Argument for our Civilization, https://philpapers.org/rec/PIETSA-6

https://datascience.stackexchange.com/questions/112354/mlops-for-beginner/112363#112363

All true, but if automation of the work activities becomes straightforward, it's a very unstable situation which can collapse to post-scarcity at any time. And it's enough for one state to do it to create a domino effect. So it's enough to have a single country revolting, a single new election, a carismatic leader. All in all, over the long term, I see this as highly likely.

What if capitalism continues, but applies only to luxury and the higher levels of the Maslow's hierarchy of needs? It's very likely that the majority of people will not satisfied just with the basics.

>Fully Automated Luxury Communism

Yes, even though I believe it to be a bit overkill. We don't need that level of tech advancement to reach basic post scarcity. No need for asteroid mining, AGI, self-replicating machines, breaktroughts in biotech or related.

OMG, you are right. Closing the project right now. :)

We better not to keep using oil :)

You are probably right. The scope of this project is only to look at the tech side. It will not be the end of story, as political change is needed. But once the tech evidence is there and clearly mapped by an open source project, it will be easier to motivate people to make further steps.

The goal of the project is basically estimating how much tech development is needed. Yea, you may say that the statement is a bit optimistic, but is based on the belief that we need advancement in robotic and AI, but nothing as crazy as AGI.

See also here for some background on the optimism: https://lorenzopieri.com/post_scarcity/