Quite so. Unless AI can do literally everything, at which point all prognostication is worthless, you can get more done with more people. The entry level jobs just might not be the same jobs that they are today. Which is actually not really much skin off the nose of the entree, as they are by definition not locked into a skillset anyway.
There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of work to be done, always. You can 10x, 100x everyone with a pulse and we still only find more work uncovered. Companies shed staff when the money runs out; the work will never run out.
Even if every CRUD webapp in the world collapses to one bored guy overseeing a fleet of 50000 AIs, as a global society we have fucking loads of work to do. We have PWh of energy capacity to design and install, a million km of high speed rail, hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of hospitals and schools, literally billions of homes to renovate from shacks to houses, forests to replant, moon bases, asteroid mines, generation ships, it goes on and on. If we want it to.
They only way work as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to (e.g. by giving all the money, aka human time rental credits, to billionaires and refusing to pay for anything they don't personally want), everyone dies, is a slave in the mines, ascends or otherwise doesn't require work to sustain, or if AGI actually happens and happens at scale.
"AI will take the jobs" is a shareholder-fellating euphemism for "we want AI to do enough work to sustain the people who own the AIs without reference to the rest of humanity". Which they were already doing quite handily anyway. Whether they can keep doing it in safety in perpetuity remains to be seen.
All the remaining jobs you mention involve physical labor. Those can not be taken by AI alone, obviously. They will be taken by robots, however.
The question is when. Robotics is in a worse shape than AI when compared to humans, but the industry is now rapidly integrating modern AI into both the process and the actual products. It's hard to say, but there might be a 'ChatGPT moment' for robotics soon.
They don't only require physical work. Only recently and quite briefly has any business been even potentially entirely non-physical. Maybe that's the aberration.
If you replace all people at all levels with robots (and the robots and their tasks don't require people to design, maintain or direct) then the "in safety" aspect of the final paragraph will probably become the important part.
If you can, say, design and build and run a railway network entirely automatically then we're well into singularity territory and there's literally no point guessing. The result could equally be infinite luxury space communism or all humans fed into the algae disgestors.
You previously said this: "They only way work [for humans] as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to"
Do you now agree that that is false? Because I think I've shown it to be false. There is nothing unique about humans that precludes robots/AI/inorganics from doing every job a human can better and cheaper at some point in the future.
Read the rest of the sentence. Pretty sure that would be covered by the last clause. Also the second sentence of the whole thing.
Also it can't infinitely be cheaper because money is fundamentally based on human time. If you can do everything without humans then the concept of money is fatally wounded. What that would mean is anyone's guess.
Quite so. Unless AI can do literally everything, at which point all prognostication is worthless, you can get more done with more people. The entry level jobs just might not be the same jobs that they are today. Which is actually not really much skin off the nose of the entree, as they are by definition not locked into a skillset anyway.
There is an absolutely ridiculous amount of work to be done, always. You can 10x, 100x everyone with a pulse and we still only find more work uncovered. Companies shed staff when the money runs out; the work will never run out.
Even if every CRUD webapp in the world collapses to one bored guy overseeing a fleet of 50000 AIs, as a global society we have fucking loads of work to do. We have PWh of energy capacity to design and install, a million km of high speed rail, hundreds of thousands of square kilometres of hospitals and schools, literally billions of homes to renovate from shacks to houses, forests to replant, moon bases, asteroid mines, generation ships, it goes on and on. If we want it to.
They only way work as a concept runs out is if we as a species decide we want it to (e.g. by giving all the money, aka human time rental credits, to billionaires and refusing to pay for anything they don't personally want), everyone dies, is a slave in the mines, ascends or otherwise doesn't require work to sustain, or if AGI actually happens and happens at scale.
"AI will take the jobs" is a shareholder-fellating euphemism for "we want AI to do enough work to sustain the people who own the AIs without reference to the rest of humanity". Which they were already doing quite handily anyway. Whether they can keep doing it in safety in perpetuity remains to be seen.