Thanks for having a real discussion. Links to breaking BS are little more than amusing confusion.
If we define "value" as expended labor nothing can "create" value except human labor, so by that definition machines can only reduce value, since they reduce the need for labor.
If we got rid of all machines would would have more "value?" Our wealth is related to the amount we produce (and don't waste), no matter how, and the labor involved is a measure of how primitive our economy is. Re-defining "value" as expended labor was Marx's greatest mistake. No wonder it requires BS classes to understand the strange re-definition of "value."
Value should be the output; not the labor involved in the harvest.
Productivity is output/hour. That means that to preserve full-time wage-dependence capitalism must increase output in proportion to increases in productivity, or it could have increased wages for the remaining workers. Capitalism does exploit workers to the max, but producing is much as possible to stay busy (maximize Marxist "value") is exploitation of the goose that lays golden eggs. The exploited workers may survive hyper-activity, but our exploited world is already toast. And, must we ignore that increased wages tracking productivity does nothing at all for those unemployed by technology or those who are sick or too old to work.
A Catholic bishop claimed that overpopulation is not a problem because more work can always produce more wealth. Did he mean that work alone can "produce" wealth without any resource inputs? How did he forget about the harvest? Matthew 9:37 is so obsolete!