> AI takes away work and lets us do more with less - just like every mechanization that came before!

No, it's not the same as mechanization. The fundamental difference, and why I find it illogical to argue either for "AI will open up tons of new work avenues" or "AI will kill all jobs" is that it all hinges on whether AI "caps out" at an intelligence level below humans (in at least some domains/capabilities), or if it is able to surpass human intelligence at all levels.

If the former is true, then yes, there will be a lot for humans to do. If the latter is true, then no, there will be no reasonable cognitive role for humans to play (beyond perhaps for some legal, "nostalgic" reasons or what not). So whether one decides to be optimistic or pessimistic really depends on if you think AI will stay at a level below humans. I really don't know, so I'm not "taking sides" in this debate.

▲

rowanG077 an hour ago | parent [-]

I think one form of cognitive labor will remain: What do we actually want to do/build. And this is simply because AI does not know our internal world. Maybe in a few years with some kind of BCI that is extremely good. But I don't see it happening at least for a few years.

▲

georgemcbay an hour ago | parent [-]

> I think one form of cognitive labor will remain: What do we actually want to do/build.

Sure, but you don't need very many people to do that relative to the billions of workers that currently exist.

If you wipe out 90% of all jobs instead of 100% the practical implications for society as a whole are roughly exactly the same.

The Great Depression was "only" 25% unemployment.

	▲	drnick1 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		A good precedent is mechanized agriculture. When machines effectively replaced most humans in agriculture, unemployment did not rise to 90%.