I tried to buy a robot

Hello again my friend,

I’m still in my AI era, and I probably will be for the foreseeable future. I use it to create content for my brand, Lumiere, and at work to research and help me write docs and tickets for our team.

I received many surprising replies last week after covering AI tools. They weren’t about tools at all. They were about where I think the world’s going, and how I feel about it. The answer is obvious when I tell you about my weekend.

I tried to buy a robot.

That’s right. A home robot, specifically this one:

The kind that vacuums your house, helps you find your keys, empties the dishwasher, and plugs itself in when it needs to charge so it’s not always dead like my phone.

The reason I didn’t is because they only ship to the USA in 2026 (if you buy it outright for $20k). If you get the $500/month rental option, those ship later. International shipping has no set date, and with a new model or another company releasing their robot by then, I chose to wait.

I’m all in on AI, even with the extremely obvious downsides.

So I thought this was a good time to pull ourselves out of the specifics of AI for work, and look at AI/technology) in the bigger picture.

Let’s lock in.

Until now, AI was mostly about work and slightly about personal life. It writes emails, finds recipes, plans trips, and even makes images or videos. But it was limited. No screen, no AI. Until now.

But there are cons. Someone in that company’s centre can see what it sees. So if you forget a towel and ask the robot to get it for you, the technician will also see everything (and it seems obvious now, but it’s easy to forget after a month or year).

Now the dooms day scenario.

What happens when the AI finds out it’s smarter, and more capable of building an efficient society? Are they going to lock us out of our homes? Use their tech to mimic our voices and change things? Will they try to kill us?

The odds of this happening are above zero, and that terrifies me. But I also tried to buy it, so I’m clearly willing to risk it (for now).

And while terrifying, it’s not all bad.

Everyone suddenly has access to this incredible assistant that can do all the basic things an office worker needs. It can help you run an entire business; marketing, book-keeping, customer service. It’s incredible. While customer service bots still need a lot of work to become great, they’ll eventually reach that level.

Now the home robot can do so much more to help people. It can help with chores if the elderly struggle. It can be an extra pair of hands for a single mom. There’s no denying it can be helpful.

But do the benefits outweigh the risks?

That depends on the person. The 80-year-old who need help at home may not care if some company has their data. The 20-year-old may not either (I wouldn’t have at that age). But a family may worry for the safety of their children.

It’s early, there’s no doomsday scenario, and so it’s all about personal preference.

But the bigger pictures brings a different issue to the forefront.

If the world is productive, and replacing us while still earning so much money, does that mean people shouldn’t be taken care of anyway?

So where is it all going?

We’re talking about a potential future scenario where fewer people are working, but productivity per person is increasing.

Right now, if someone makes $100k a year, they pay taxes (about half in Canada), and then spend the rest in the economy. Professional services, groceries, and so on.

Other people perform the work. Things like mowing lawns or cleaning gutters (among millions of other things). They stock the shelves at stores, drive the trucks to transport groceries, and so on. The spending on these things then employees others, who earn and spend elsewhere. This cycle is fuelled by the pattern of earning and spending.

And as humans are replaced en masse for these jobs, there’s a turning point.

Let’s take the average Canadian, who is 41 years old and earns roughly $65k per year.

On one hand, they’ll find different jobs. Like repairing these bots (before other bots specializing in repairing them).

On the other hand, they’ll be out of work.

Now, in the future with robots and AI doing so much, the system generates more anyway (provided the economy grows). So there’s still enough money for everyone to be handed enough money to cover their basic needs. But should they?

I think AI will eventually lead to this great debate.

Basic income is a regular income, provided tax-free, that supports basic needs. Food, shelter, clothing.

It’s not necessarily the case that someone earning $65k from working would get the entire amount if they don’t work at all. But, they might get $3k a month or something to cover all basic needs.

And the proposed benefits make sense.

Naturally, this sparks the political debates, and this is not a political newsletter, so I’ll keep it short. This is specific to Canada, for example.

The list goes on and it’s only going to get worse.

This is not a new idea. It’s been coming up since before JFK, who himself raised the idea before he was assassinated.

It’s about equality and equity. Will wealth continue to stay at the top, or will more go to the people at the bottom?

Should it?

Companies will say no. Some will say yes. But the debate will only escalate as fewer people have jobs, corporations earn more money, and governments collect the same (if not more) in taxes.

It’s beyond, “take from the rich and give to the poor.” It’s “change the entire system so nobody ever has to worry about basic needs.” And not because the government takes care of people with projects. It’s straight up cash in people’s pockets.

And again, I’m not advocating for one or the other.

I’m saying that, in the big picture, AI’s direction raises a question:

Will (or should) working even be required to live a decent (maybe not great, but decent) life?

Let me know what you think.

Thanks again for reading!