The toxic aspect generally comes from the consequences of pursuing ambition by undermining others in a competitive context. If, hypothetically, the competitive pressure is off, then "ambition" is not nearly as likely to have negative consequences.
Here the person was saying we really need to actually put our minds to use, and that's not really likely to be the 'toxic ambition' you fear.
Also to some extent, impossible to train. If a person needs to feel the situation or it demands the full dexterity of the hand, then that is not going to be captured in training data. It's why the robots are being tele-operated, yes in part to demonstrate the mechanical bits work, but the tele-operation is the only way they can get training data. If you couldn't use a VR controller to do a task successfully, then they can't even capture the training data needed.
The challenge is that the current approaches that are very novel broadly have proven relatively less useful for things like robotic manual labor.
The crux of the current AI craze is machine learning, which needs all the sensory information the human perceives that is relevant to the task and all of the things the human does in response in every detail. You can't tell a model to "just feel out how that screwdriver is going and make sure you don't strip the head or cross-thread it by mistake", it has no abstraction, it can only derive the most likely inputs from training data based on the sensory information.
This works reasonably well for vehicle operation, where the human generally only has sight and hearing, and generally only operates a few relatively simple controls, wheels, pedals, knobs. Even with that advantage, it needs a mountain of sample data. Millions of miles of drive data to work with and the result is still a bit janky, kind of like a human with about 3000 miles of total lifetime driving experience.
Once you want to extend this approach to anything involving a more comprehensive use of hand dexterity and everything you can feel, then it becomes a problem. If you can imagine yourself tele-operating a robot with VR headset and controllers to do a task, then they have a path to get training data. That's how a lot of these 'chore-bot' ambitions are trying to be realized, workers tele-operating for demos and training data, in hopes of getting enough training data to do things competently one day. But imagine trying to use a manual screw driver in that tele-operation scenario, making sure it's lined up, doesn't cross thread, and you don't strip the head. I couldn't imagine doing something even that simple in the real world without just being able to feel the screwdriver in my hand, to feel how the screw is going in or not going in, if the resistance feels right and consistent. If it's a situation that makes sense to use a driver, then probably could tele-operate it, but in cases where we need the finesse of a manual tool, those are going to be super challenging to address. Even using a driver, I always manually start it, either with my fingers or a screwdriver, and the driver comes in when alignment is well assured.
Now the long standing approaches are of course already a big factor in automating construction. The new approaches can also make it easier to take a task that was almost within the reach of robotic choreogrpahy but foiled by something like unexpected weight and wind, so the relatively newer AI approaches help make it easy to correct for deviations to provide a steady environment to execute the programmed movements. But the versalitility of a person with full use of their hands and feelings is going to be a tough road unless some breakthrough happens.
Indeed, someone with a deep fanaticism for Musk posted exactly that scenario as inevitable. This was to stand by his man when Musk asserted that SpaceX should be worth more than everything else on earth combined (he was pissed that spcx had fallen).
The dude claimed that by 2038 the 20 biggest companies would all be entirely space based exclusively, and that globally SpaceX would be the sole provider of space technology and the other 19 companies would be tenants of SpaceX. It all made sense to him because space is bigger than earth, right?
I can't find it, but among the usual suspects (space mining, space datacenters, terra forming), I was especially amused that his hypothetical "space banking company", because for some reason the financials of space companies needed to be managed by a company that could get stuff launched into space?
To an extent, they weren't betting on the business, they were betting on the masses eating up the stock.
And they were at least initially right, and cashing out 2-4 days after the IPO certainly worked for and of them. Stock going down required some significant portion of them to take their winnings.
They were betting on the stupidity of the retail investor, not the fundamentals of the business.
Also, Elon rolled most of that 'future AI empire' stuff into SPCX instead. Meaning that even if investors wanted to believe it that, they know that Elon can play shell games and put the prize wherever he wants and the investors are not able to control that.
Yeah, while there are some folks that are die-hard must have gas cars, lots of other folks experience instant torque, smoothest and quietest drive imaginable, and replenishing range without having to go out of your way to a station. Wondering when the next maintenance needs to come and there's no oil, no wearing belts, no super hot engine bay, just some things like wiper blades and a bit more rough on tires owing to generally higher weight.
There are downsides and awkward fits for some people. My apartment dwelling colleague would be screwed since his place has no available residential charging. Road trips can be more inconvient (though viable and perhaps worth it if you are taking a road trip every few months but spare yourself a weekly trip to the gas station). But certainly there's a market for which EVs provide more value than combustion vehicles.
I want you to be right, but I'm more skeptical. I see all over the place companies explicitly targeting a profitable subset: the biggest suckers of the available suckers. Higher margin, fewer whiny customers. Bonus points if it creates a cult-like fanbase (a lot of big brands manage to cultivate this).
Saw a story where a company explicitly had a strategy of "increase prices by 10x, and it may scare off 90% of customers, but the 10% left will be a wonderful gold mine". Particularly shortages in the tech industry swayed a lot of folks that advocated for high-volume, low-margin to low-volume, high-margin.
So if 20% are ride-or-die for Tesla and Musk, then it might be a decent enough move to double down on those 20%.
Not defending, just an explanation, and one that if anything would enrage Elon more.
He's still an absurdly over-wealthed taint stain, but the specific numbers over that threshold were just not quite as substantial as other (also somewhat imaginary) numbers.
Point in fact, he was a trillionaire, and now he is not, but he didn't lose anything real. He still has every bit the amount of real wealth and control over all that stuff you listed that he had before, just the number shifted by billions of dollars while preserving every last thing of import that was wrong with his wealth. He is no longer a trillionaire but that means absolutely nothing about the problems his wealth pose in real terms.
At some point, the numbers cease being a thing for meeting their needs, their comforts, and at some point even their every whim and preference they could possibly imagine. It just becomes a score and they peg their egos to the score. This is a level no one should ever be at.
Didn't help that he pissed away the carefully cultivated "Tony Stark" image. Now people don't shrug off his failures like they were inclined to do.
Note that while that sounds ridiculous, we demarcate value using a currency system that makes standing still look like mild growth. When you ultimately are controlling currency, you can create the appearance of growth under any real world condition you like.
So a company that looks flat in a system designed to make flat look like grown is actually experiencing some decline.
Of course whether that is a decline in product, results, or just random investor sentiment is all up in the air.
Well, there's livelihood and work, and so far no one has exactly inspired confidence that the current labor class will receive a livelihood. We've let systems solidify that basically demand that the labor class have some semblance of leverage to participate in the benefits. So far the practical result has been that the hypothetical scenario erases that leverage, while avoiding any concessions that may win over the people that would be screwed over. It's nice to hand wave and say "some new system", but without more concrete things to look at, there is the risk of "well, let's remove the labor leverage and just assume that the utopian outcome results instead of the dystopian".
One thing that concerns me is that a common short story held up as an example of awesome utopia brought on by post-scarity due to AI is "Manna". The plight of the dystopian half is very plausible, but the "utopian" half has a lot of problems in mechanism of how it happened and issues when "realized". If even in fiction we can't make a convincing narrative that lands in an unambiguous utopia, then my hopes for reality is pretty low.
So I guess in short, I agree with your sentiment, but too pessimistic to see the upside being realized and afraid that the optimisim around the upside results in rationalizing the downsides.