Pay close attention to the arguments being made. If someone is likely to persuade you, even with a bad argument, I'd recommend being particularly cautious.
For example, in CGP Grey's Humans Need Not Apply, an early analogy is made, forcing us to choose between two ideas:
1) That a long-term pattern that has shown little sign of abating must, soon, completely reverse and the world will change significantly, or,
2) There is a meaningful difference between how people interact with the economy and how horses interact with the economy.
I don't mean to be flippant! But even if all "labor" was done by computers, it would still require a human tell the computer what to attempt to do, and a human would collect the producer surplus from that activity. In a deep legal, social, and practical sense it is impossible to push humans out of the economic loop – perhaps we become hyper-capitalist-consumers, all owning dozens of businesses we don't practically run at all, and consume on a scale we can hardly imagine as some weary computers do all the hard work catering to our thousands of unique whims – it might sound more unlikely, but at least it's possible without us humans deciding that humans no longer are necessary for legal ownership, and I don't understand why we would do that in the employment hellscape he imagines.
So this video punches above it's weight. The self-driving car predictions haven't happened, and that's the only concrete prediction it makes. The "this is the beginning of the revolution" generalized robots he touted as being better-than-humans-could-be haven't caught on, and the company making them went bankrupt. Instead of saving lots of money by replacing workers, they... did nothing, and the company got scrapped for parts.
It seems fair to say, he's been about as flatly wrong as you could be. But he's persuasive. Maybe we should approach his ideas with very, very high levels of skepticism.