The purpose of the "review" isn't necessarily to criticize the dudes worldview, which, is obviously some kind of protestant worldview. His references to "the rapture" give that away.
But, to address the topic of AI and the AI disaster scenerio outlined in the video from an Orthodox viewpoint.
I've worked in software/tech for my entire adult life, nearly 30 years, and I believe we are fast approaching a situation where most people will no longer be "needed", well, everyone except Jewish doctors, they'll always be needed so they can be mentioned on each live-stream.
This guy's first mistake is believing what tech bros tell him even after saying that they are busy with a great deception. I didn't get nearly all the way through.
AI agents are absolutely incapable of reason. Not only is it mathematically impossible (Incompleteness Theorem*), but there is also hard empirical evidence that the methods do not generalise.
It follows directly from the Incompleteness Theorems that anything which a human mind is capable of designing, must operate at a “level” of reasoning--for lack of a word--which is strictly lesser than that of the human mind. You don't get out of it by invoking singularities and other fictions--the thing the human mind designed can only design, if it can design at all, systems of “reason” at a level strictly lesser than itself by the same argument from the same theorem, unless you get down to the level where something is so simple as to be trivial or you look the other direction up to being transcendental. (There must be infinitely many possible levels.) You don't break out by invoking evolution, self-modification, random mutation, or other similar fictions because for the same reason that you cannot design a correct answer with intent, you cannot identify a correct design even if you found it. (Otherwise you would have been able to design it. And besides, it contains the unproven assumption that the material universe is even capable of containing such a design.) All of those midwit solutions are, in fact, designs which because of the theorem do not work for that particular problem.
Machines can perform certain tasks faster and more efficiently than we can. That has always been the case. However, they can never achieve the level of understanding that we have. We do not UNDERSTAND what the level of understanding is that we have, which they can not have. We can never understand ourselves, or we would have been able to design ourselves.
Because we do not understand this higher aspect of Man and can not, not even in principle, empty-headed materialists and atheist Jews assume that there must not really be anything and that they can just sweep it all under the rug by throwing a little more computational power at the problem. Computation is something we can understand. It is, in fact, the thing mathematicians arrived at by exploring the question of what it is that human beings can solve by only discursive reasoning (the only kind of reasoning most of them would accept).
The material universe is computable as far as we can tell by every method of investigation. It is subject to discursive reasoning, you might say. It cannot, it follows, contain the thing (whatever it is) that allows human beings to be greater than computable, which we must necessarily have had for us to understand and invent computation. I stress, cannot contain according to everything we know. For a counterpoint Roger Penrose is a little odd here in that he understands and promotes everything I just said about the Incompleteness Theorems, except he still believes in materialism so he insists that the material universe must be non-computable in some as yet undiscovered way. He is one of the most brilliant mathematicians in the world. As Orthodox Christians in general we would just say that Penrose is wrong but closer than other materialists. We could say just by the obvious process of elimination, that this hidden aspect of Man must have something to do with what the Fathers call the nous, or at least a part of it, and that vaguely it must have something to do with infinity or the concept of infinity just based on the limitations of computation, and based on what we know about animal cognition.
I work with computer models all day. The idea that they could keep the world running without human intervention is laughable. They need constant correction and it is mathematically impossible for this to be fully automated. Tech bros who brag about that are the managers, not the ones keeping the lights on.
Now to finally answer your concern, our masters will still try because they will not admit that they are wrong, and they will use it as a lame excuse to cut wages. That is a different matter from whether it really works (just like DEI hiring). The decline of infrastructure and institutions will continue to accelerate as our masters insist on hammering a square peg of godlessness into a round hole of wisdom. Perhaps this may some day save our backsides, if the kingdom of Antichrist ends up collapsing faster than it can round us all up. AI has produced a few very useful tools and a lot of broken ones which look cool but will bite us oh so badly if we are dumb enough to use them for serious work. Which, as I just said, our masters insist on doing anyway.
Sadly, automation will destroy social cohesion and increase the leverage of wealth over labour regardless if it is AI or not. That is too long a topic for this post.
Lastly, the man is correct to be concerned about fakes but he's a little slow on the uptake there. Fakes are everywhere, and have been for thousands of years. Large numbers of museum pieces are fake. Large numbers of historical documents are fake. Film and audio have been faked for as long as they have existed. News media were always full of fakes. There was a brief period in the 20th Century when Western media successfully convinced millions that it could be trusted. That was a meta-fake. Whenever we discover a way of identifying a fake, a way of faking the test is discovered as well.
P.S. you can take the Incompleteness argument in the exact opposite direction to prove that we cannot understand the Divine Essence in any way, shape, or form. We could also wonder about the nature of the angels, or their ranks. We do not know how different from us they really are--just higher intelligence, or a higher kind of intelligence?
P.P.S. it also disproves evolution, or at least the atheistic kind.
Sorry, there was very little specific to Orthodoxy in that. I'll leave it to the clergy.
I recommend Luke Smith's three videos on the matter - he is World Orthodox but also somewhat experienced in tech. Look into the Chinese Room Experiment which demonstrates that AI has no genuine understanding the way creatures do.
I didn't get nearly all the way through.