This same argument is easily dismissed by most because it boils down to "why not dig with spoons?"

It only becomes compelling to me if you believe in true AGI/ASI, at which point all human labor becomes irrelevant, and then we have something quite new to think about.

But simply "it automates away a small portion of jobs" is not compelling.

How much of human labor has to become irrelevant before we have something new to think about?