Thanks. Interesting reads.
The first one refutes the idea that we'll all retire and let the robots do our work, which isn't exactly the point the video was making.
The second is making the point that our laws are written to be enforced by people. There's nothing stopping us from writing software that exercises the same judgements as a human would (or changing the law to reflect the laws that are actually enforced). Ticket people exceeding the speed limit by a certain amount. It also describes instances where our early law enforcement automation is crappy. That's to be expected. It's early. If those systems don't get better with time then they'll be unique in human history.
The third makes a number of points, but they're mostly already countered in the video. Replacing the bottom third of jobs with robots may just result in different jobs for people. But the pace of change to reach that point has been slow. If it speeds up, and we reach the point where many more of the jobs we do can be done better and cheaper by robot then what will all the people do?
I expect there would be a bit of a backlash in some places against robots or automated services. ATM? No thanks, I'll use a real teller. Robot McDonalds? No thanks, I'll eat at the Burger King that employs local teens.
But I doubt that would have a huge impact in the end. The world could end up very stratified into people whose jobs have not yet been automated, and everyone else. I expect socialism would start looking a lot more attractive. The masses may really buy into the idea that the natural wealth of a country should first serve to provide a decent standard of living, and then the remainder should go to reward those who generate wealth.