Very often the justification for why these things aren't terribly disruptive is that the very best of a certain trade or field will still have a useful skillset. Like the best graphic designers in the world are still more creative and skilled than AI, and the best writers are still better, the best programmers are still better, just that they're all more expensive and slower.

But we're not taking into account how it affects the mediocre or average people in these fields. Roughly half of all of these people are below average. Maybe if you're the best you'll always have a job, but what about the guy who legitimately struggled to finish high school? The person who genuinely doesn't have the capacity to earn much more than minimum wage?

▲

zeven7 4 hours ago | parent [-]

We're currently at the part of the story where chess AI can beat amateurs and is rapidly improving. Kasparov's not worried, he's an expert. He's more creative and skilled than an AI.

Why would these machines stop improving at average this time?

▲

pvab3 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I didn't say they weren't improving. My point is that if our justification is comparing the top 10% of performers to AI to justify human performance, that speaks poorly for the replacement of the bottom 10% of humans.

	▲	0c3ca83 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		And why not the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.001%? Either AI stops improving, or we're in for a grim future for people.