> humans will work on better problems than performing repeated tasks on an assembly line or flipping burgers.

Haha. The current wave of “careers we couldn’t think of” that tech companies have created include being Uber/Doordash/Amazon delivery drivers, data labelers for training AIs, moderator to prevent horrific content spreading on social networks,… with way weaker social benefits & protections than the blue collar jobs of old they replaced.

So yeah, I have a hard time buying this fantasy of everyone doing some magical fulfilling work while AI does all the ugly work, especially when every executive out there is plainly stating that their ideal outcome is replacing 90% of their workforce with AI.

With the way things are headed, AI will take over large economic niches, and humans will fill in at the edges doing the grimy things AI can’t do, with ever diminishing social mobility and safety nets while AI company executives become trillionaires.

> So why is the assumption that AI will magically delete all jobs while discounting the fact that it will create careers we haven’t even thought of?

I think that in a vacuum you could reasonably believe that this might be the case but I feel like it isn't just about the technology these days, it's about the hunger c-suites and tech companies have for replacing workforce with ai and/or automation. It's quite clear that layoffs and mass adoption of AI/automation raises shareholder value so there is no incentive to create new jobs.

Will there be an organic shift away from Tech/IT/Computers into new fields? It might, but I think it's a bit naive to think that this will be proportionate to the careers AI will make redundant when there is such a big focus on eliminating as much jobs as possible in lieu of AI.

The hope is that we have no employment and we moved into a different form of society where AI takes care of us and allows us to focus on more spiritual meaningful things.

For now AI is deleting many of the jobs the computer created.

The reality is we will more likely end up in a society where wealth/power at the very top will grow and the masses will be controlled by AI.

It's largely irrelevant in terms of intelligence. What you're describing is throwing out 2-D topological integrations (what we do to achieve optic flow ultra fast reaction times in motion), vicarious trial and error, and brute force imposing a machine wax fruit of motion dexterity. It's simply not analog to events the way we experience, it's been cooked up in cog-sci as imitation, but it's not even that. The more we understand the brain's architecture and process, the less relevant this gets, as it's not for legitimate long-term bio ware. There are no world models, the idea is oxymoronic as the topological bypasses this in scale invariance. It's all a dead end this binary, since eventually, analog will rule this with minimal energy and software and use an entirely different software. Think of any arriving too early industry, AI is irrelevant, the first step was reinventing software. It took the least efficient compute principle and drove it to irrelevance using machine vision as an endgame. The lack of redundancies is the tell.

I wonder what is this fascination with human shaped robots, if spider shaped robots could be more dexterous and productive.

(Unless it's sci-fi and porn that is mainly pushing for human shaped robots.)