Sorry but this is sophisticated but ultimately hollow cope, and it's worse if coming with fresh OAI and GDM affiliations.
So, no, @alexolegimas, Ricardo's essay is about a different point than @zetalyrae. 'No-One Escapes the Permanent Underclass' mostly argues that when you stop being useful for production or capital allocation or violence and lose these as a source of leverage - and all you have is capital ownership - you are likely to be expropriated. If you've you read both essays, what is your actual argument about the political economy of the situation?
And, no, @deanwball the conclusions of the essay are not in the stated premises, and the premises are not outrageous. There are many who believe that even if "AI can do all cognitive and physical work, at human level or better, and cheaper than humans." and also believe "most humans will be disempowered" but they can escape the shared fate of humans by accumulating capital, working at AGI labs, or similar. The essay makes an argument against that. (I don't think the attack against you was a good or necessary part of the essay)
I'm an optimist in the sense that I believe the political economy problems are solvable and it is possible to escape @zetalyrae's conclusion, but we have better chance if people seriously engage with the problem, and this is the opposite.
New rule: Anyone who is about to write a "all workers will be replaced by machines" essay needs to first read On Machinery by David Ricardo (yes, that David Ricardo), because he probably wrote your essay...in 1817.
