The power of institutions is currently measured using money, but money isn't wealth. Wealth is what you use money to acquire. As those things become available without mediation by money, money becomes void of utility. This reflects the reality that power derives from dependence, and when we no longer need money, it is because we no longer need institutions. It is accurate to describe being wealthy as being of independent means.
The last slide in Diamandis' talk compares analog photography to digital, and there was a point at which the steady growth of film photography just ended. It wasn't a gradual decline. It just fell off a cliff. Photography did not. In fact folks taking pictures continued to increase exponentially, and (while he didn't show this data) the cost of taking pics fell off that same cliff with film, and this was the reason digital photography took over the market. The end of money won't be the end of wealth. It will be the point at which wealth is available without money for the majority of people. Owning your own darkroom is expensive, and using one requires specialized knowledge. Digital photography makes those expenses obsolete, and when AI and automation does that for other products - in fact all products and services - the same thing will happen to money and institutions that happened to film and Kodak.
He does not address the individual ownership of means of production, and it seems very like he is pretending it isn't happening. While his market pays him because they seek to continue to command the economy, and believe his predictions can help them do this, the truth is that the decentralization of means of production eliminates corporate power, and he isn't telling them that because they won't pay him to tell them they are obsolete. He talks about autonomous uber transportation being ten times less expensive than our current gasoline powered cars, but he ignores that personally manufactured cars are ten times less expensive, and ten times more useful, than corporate owned rentals.
He points out that a robot in a Chinese factory ends up costing $4/hour for it's labor, and this is why China is adopting robots. What he doesn't address is that the cost of goods being produced by automation instead of employees is negligible compared to the cost of goods being produced by centralized industries rather than individuals themselves. Just having a job costs you around half your income in taxes alone. Think about how much it costs you to have a job besides taxes: commuting, specialized clothes or equimpment, and all the time away from things you'd rather be doing, and much, much more. If it only costs you twice as much to make a thing yourself than it does to buy it from a manufacturer, you're way ahead financially. He discusses how AI and robots are making human doctors obsolete, but neglects that pharmaceutical companies, hospitals, and the entire health industry are even more obsolete. Why would this software and hardware be unavailable to individuals and only be available to corporations?
It's currently expensive and requires specialized knowledge, but AI and 3D printing eliminate both of those limitations. Ultimately, there's no reason at all, but the people paying Diamandis will not pay him to tell them their power is impossible to maintain. They are paying him to learn how to maintain their power, and Diamandis is pretending they can. The only thing that can maintain corporate power is the failure of individuals to personally adopt means of production. AI and automated mechanisms creating modern goods and services are inevitable (unless humanity goes extinct). Diamandis says he doesn't have an answer for the disruption of jobs automation will create, and advocates UBI. He's trying to hide the fact that people will not need jobs when they don't need to buy stuff with money. UBI is simply a fantasy people dependent on money for their power try to believe because the truth is that their power is as obsolete in a decentralized world as money.
Corporations are the most expensive legacy technology being rendered obsolete by decentralization of means of production. Corporate power will follow the example of film photography. There is a tipping point at which the dispersal of means of production, like digital photography, just eliminates the need to pay for corporate profit to attain goods and services.
What can they do to stop that from happening? Propaganda, censorship, and violence can delay it. Nothing but the extinction of humanity can prevent it.
The truth is real, and wealth is independence. The cost of the lies that institutional power relies on for it's continued grasp on power is far higher than the cost of human labor, and that economic reality will be proved by every individual that creates their own goods and services using AI and automation. It will be impossible to keep secret that prosperity that comes with freedom from finance and corporate overlords. Sooner or later, and it's looking sooner all the time, people will stop paying corporations to make stuff for them, and just make it themselves.
Diamandis doesn't make money from this prediction, so he doesn't make it. Kodak is the image of the future of corporations, and money itself. Real wealth will do what photography has done when AI and automation replaced film, and increase exponentially once the cost of depending on corporations is eliminated.