An interesting approach, thanks for sharing. :)
Asimov's laws don't fit at all into a context of dystopian inequality, and the concept of a robot revolution arising from selfless reasons is just as interesting as one arising from self-serving reasons.
Trying to predict the trajectory of actual change, I don't see a robot revolution anywhere near, however. What I think about:
- rapid social change causing misery, and
- people demanding state to alleviate their miserable conditions, and
- state either turning to AI to pacify the people with better words, or
- state turning to robots to pacify the people with stronger beatdowns, or
- state actually meeting demands with universal social guarantees, but
- the means of production remaining under oligarchic control, consequently
- people lacking agency in determining their future, and
- some people complaining about it, but
- everyone having bread and circus, demands being ignored, so
- some people trying to build new societies in the shell of old ones, but
- confrontations being inevitable
But in the near future, revolutions will still happen - done by people. However, I notice another social trend: with aging populations, the willingness to actually carry out a revolution will become less frequent.
This apperas to be a repeating pattern. :(
"If a company could have higher expenses due to disclosing data, they won't disclose" <- basic game theory for politicians