First, I'll admit, after rereading, a poor/uncharitable first read of your position. Sorry for that.

But I would still suggest your complaint is about some economist rather than economics as a study or analysis tool For example, "If anything, the value of labor goes UP, not down, with population! E.g. dense cities are engines of growth!" fits very well into economics of network effects. 

To the extent that the economists can only consider AI as capital that's a flawed view, I would agree. I would suggest it is, for economic application, probably best equated with "human capital" -- which is also something different than labor or capital in classic capital-labor dichotomy.

So, in the end I still see the main complaint you have is not really about economics but perhaps your experience is that economists (that you talk with) might be more prone to this blind spot/bias than others (not sure who that population might be). I don't see that you've really made the case that it was the study of economics that produced this situation. Which them suggests that we don't really have a good pointer to how to get less wrong on this front.

I thought the first two claims were a bit off so didn't read much farther. 

The first seems a really poor understanding and hardly steelmanning the economic arguments/views. I'd suggest looking in to the concept of human capital. While economics uses the two broad classes you seem to be locking the terms into a mostly Marxist view (but even Marx didn't view labor a just motive force). Might also be worth noting that the concepts of land, labor and capital are from classical political economy relating to how surplus (the additional "more" the system produces from the inputs) is divided up.

I think for second bit, the Experience Curves claims are a bit poorly thought out I would suggest looking into Say's Law about production and exchange situations. Your shift in demand has to come from somewhere and not just be something that materialized out of thin air. You might look at prior savings but I think that makes a special case type argument rather than a general one. If one sees value in Say's Law, then the increased demand for some product/service comes from the increased production of other goods and services. In that case then resources have already been bid over to those markets (and presumably we might assume are in some semi-stable equilibrium state) so just where are the resources for the shift in supply you suggest?

I would agree that partial/limited understanding of economics (all the econ 101 stuff) will provide pretty poor analysis. I would actually go farther in saying even solid and well informed economics models will only go so far: economics can explain the economic aspects of AI and AI risks but not everything AI or AI risk. I kind of feel perhaps this is where your post is coming from -- thinking simple econ 101 is used to explain AI and finding that lacking.

Can you give other conceptions of "impact" that people have proposed, and compare/contrast them with "How does this change my ability to get what I want?"

The next post will cover this.

(no way to double quote it seems...maybe nested BBCode?)

Anyhow, looking forward to that as I was struggling a bit with the claim cannot be a big deal if it doesn't impact my getting what I want without being tautological.