I don't think that follows. Prices are set by market forces, not by cost (though cost is usually a hard floor).

Waymo rides cost within a few tens of cents of Uber and Lyft rides. Waymo doesn't have to pay a driver, so what's the deal? It costs a lot to build those cars and build the software to run them. But also Waymo doesn't want a flood of people such that there's always zero availability (with Uber and Lyft they can at least try to recruit more drivers when demand goes up, but with Waymo they have to build more cars and maintain and operate them), so they set their prices similarly to what others pay for a similar (albeit with human driver) service.

I'm also reminded of Kindle books: the big promise way back when is that they'd be significantly cheaper than paperbacks. But if you look around today, the prices on Kindle books are similar to that of paperbacks, even more expensive sometimes.

Sure, when costs go down, companies in competitive markets will lower prices in order to gain or maintain market share. But I'm not convinced that any of those things you mention will end up being competitive markets.

Just wanted to mention:

> AI Law Enforcement: Will piece together all the evidence in a split second and come up with a fair judgement. Will prevent crime before it happens by analyzing body language, emotions etc.

No thanks. Current law enforcement is filled with issues, but AI law enforcement sounds like a hellish dystopia. It's like Google's algorithms terminating your Google account... but instead you're in prison.

Why would health care cost go to zero just because it’s automated? There are still costs involved

Yeah, definitely no magical thinking here. Nothing is free. Computers cost money and energy. Infrastructure costs money and energy. Even if no human is in the loop(who says this is even desirable?), all of the things you mention require infrastructure, computers, materials. Meaning there's a cost. Also, the idea that "AI law enforcement" is somehow perfect just goes to illustrates GP's point. Sure, if we define "AGI" as something which can do anything perfectly at no cost, then it has infinite value. But that's not a reasonable definition of AGI. And it's exactly the AI analogue of a perpetual motion machine.

> AI will accelerate scientific progress by coming up with novel hypotheses and then testing them

I hate to break the illusion, but scientific progress is not being held up by a lack of novel hypotheses