It is my belief that programming cannot be automated. Hear me out. I'm a programmer by trade, and I've often had this discussion with people outside of the field. The most common objection is, "Well, what happens when we get computers/programs/AI's sufficiently complex that we simply have to speak what we want our program to do, and the AI can immediately spit out a program to do exactly that?"
The thing is, in my experience at least, the actual writing of the code is the EASY part of programming. The HARD part is learning how to be INCREDIBLY PRECISE and SPECIFIC about what you want the computer to do. So even if we have perfectly intelligent robots to write our code for us, the onus would still be on us to specify PRECISELY and EXACTLY what we want our program to do - and this is the very definition of programming.
Here's an example. It is silly, exaggerated, and would probably never be a real scenario, but I think it makes the point: Suppose you are preparing a presentation for your boss, and you need some statistics for it. You need to know the average age of every house within a particular zip code. You say to your magic automated-programming-AI-box.
You: "Okay Box™, Run a program which calculates the average age of all houses in zip code 96818"
Box™: "Well what?"
You: "What is the answer to the program you just ran?"
Box™: "Oh, I didn't know you wanted me to save the result."
You: "Oh okay, I would have thought that would be obvious, but understandable. Okay Box™, run a program which calculates the average age of all houses in zip code 96818, and GIVE ME THE ANSWER."
Box™: "Well what?"
You: "What is the ANSWER?!"
Box™: "The answer is in your email box - that's usually how I give you answers, so I figured--"
You: "Look, I really REALLY need to get this done quickly, and I don't have access to my email terminal right now. Okay Box™, can you please run a program which calculates the average age of all houses in zip code 96818, and speak the answer aloud to me, right now?"
Box™: "Sure. Processing. Done. The answer is five thousand, six hundred and eighty two years old."
You: "Whaaat? That's ridiculous! There can't even be ONE that old, let alone nearly HALF! How did you come up with that answer??"
Box™: "I calculated this area's average population over the course of human history, which mostly entailed wandering tribes up until humans started building permanent residences approximately 200,000 years ago. Those first houses were VERY old, but there were very few of them. Modern humans have built VERY MANY quite young houses in recent years, so with my best estimates, the average house is ~5,000 years old."
You: "Wait what? You're counting houses up to 200,000 years ago?! Those can't possibly even be standing anymore!"
Box™: "You are correct - the vast majority of these structures have ceased standing long ago. I took averages of archaelogic discoveries in this area for the past several decades, and calculated how many ancient structures must exist buried underground, or on the surface, but collapsed."
You: "WHY WOULD I CARE ABOUT ANCIENT HOUSES UNDERGROUND AND PILES OF RUBBLE?! Okay Box™, can you please run a program which calculates the average age of all houses in zip code 96818, counting only structures erected after 1800 A.D., and only including structures which remain currently at least 90% standing, and speak the answer aloud to me, right now?"
Your boss: sticking his head in your doorway "Johnson, got that report ready? I need it by 2:00!"
The problem here is that even if you DO have some miraculous oracle-box which can generate an answer, YOU are still tasked with being overtly precise in exactly what you are asking for from the data. There MAY be cases where we can trust machines to make presumptions about what it is we really want based on context, common sense and past requests, but once we've gone that far, we haven't really automated the task so much as created another sentient creature to whom we have now delegated it; how is that any different than just hiring someone to do it for us? (I do not mean that last question rhetorically - literally, what is the philisophical difference?)
And this contrived example was just a simple query for data from a database. "Real" examples would entail requesting systems whose functions are many orders of magnitude more complex. Sure we might be able to create AI's which are capable of spitting out code for them, but we'd still have to be so precise in describing those systems that we would find ourselves back where we started - as programmers (though perhaps speaking a slightly different programming dialect).
The question after this becomes rather opinion based.
Are there jobs that shouldn't be automated?
Considering the possibilities of the next 30 years it's entirely possible that everything from conception and maternity* onwards could be automated.
But would you really want to?
There are also jobs where it's probably not cost effective to automate even on these timescales. Soft fruit picking is one. Currently it's done by lots of people, usually, and traditionally, migrant workers. While it could be automated, the high cost of developing/purchasing a machine capable of doing the job would not be viable relative to the low cost of day labourers.
This factor of cost effectiveness is going to be the prime consideration in almost all cases. Is the machine cheaper than the man/woman/peasant/illegal immigrant? People have to be paid, but machines have to be purchased, stored, maintained and repaired.
*Life begins when the kids leave home and the dog dies
We have no idea how to write software that emulates the creative processes used by people who write music, compose novels, write poetry, or do other kinds of art.
Every attempt at this, even recent efforts, has significant flaws. I would argue that just a linear or geometric increase in computing power isn't enough; we need to develop not just a machine that passes the Turing test, but a machine that exhibits curiosity. We can't do that yet, and there's no clear path to get there from here.
If you assume AIs will be able to do anything that humans can do:
Priest (in any mainstream religion)
Sure, AIs might have their own religions one day, but if the job description requires a divine calling, immortal soul, or blessing by the spaghetti monster, AIs just need not apply
If you assume what AIs can realistically achieve in the foreseeable future:
Plenty (in the next few decades)
You have to keep two things in mind:
A few decades isn't much time, AI research simply doesn't move that fast.
Think about self-driving cars: The necessary ideas (cameras, artificial neural networks, drive-by-wire) have been around almost since WWII, but it still took 5 decades to go from autonomous cars that can only use special roads, to cars that can go on normal roads without traffic, then with traffic, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_autonomous_cars) and we're still not at the point were driverless cars can replace taxi drivers. Even if you have all the technology in theory, it takes a lot of time to make it work well enough in practice, and even more time to build it cheap enough so you can sell it.
The easy-to-automate jobs are already automated by now
Take the for example typical factory jobs: Your average factory worker doesn't sit on an assembly line doing repetitive work like Charlie Chaplin. Machines have been replacing those jobs for decades, in most industry branches and countries. But every now and then, something goes wrong: A tool breaks or wears out, a circuit breaker engages, software controlling a machine crashes, a machine was set up wrong, or simply stops with an error message. That's when Joe Factory Worker has to replace a spare part, look for the malfunction, read the manual, call the supplier's hotline - all difficult things for an AI. These jobs might be replaced gradually, but it will take longer than a few decades.
So, in a nutshell: Robots doing the jobs that are done by humans now isn't a realistic scenario in the next 20-30 years. What's more likely is that whole industry branches will be replaced (e.g. like stores are gradually replaced by online sellers, or prostitution is gradually replaced by dating apps). There will still be jobs in these new industry branches, but they will be different jobs, and probably fewer.
Basically what's been happening since the industrial revolution.
The human brain is essentially an extremely complex computer. Therefore, a sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence could mimic human thought while also omitting human flaws.
From a purely scientific standpoint, there is nothing that really makes the human brain unique when stacked against sufficiently advanced technology.
Not all jobs should be automated:
Even if advanced AI is capable of perfectly mimicking human personalities, there would be one area where AIs should not take over all functions: reproduction and child-rearing.
While an AI could easily manage things like artificial insemination and managing a daycare, even to the point of acting as a completely lifelike nanny, it could be argued that humans should still be in charge of the process.
Consider it this way: if child-rearing were completely relegated to AIs with lifelike bodies, and those AIs were designed to mimic the philosophies and values of humans, then they'd raise children with those values. Those exact values. Every time. Every generation. Humanity would cease to develop its societies and cultures-- for good or ill-- and would largely stagnate.
Any job which can be broken down into a concrete set of requirements for success can theoretically be automated. The interesting question that arises is whether a particular job can indeed be boiled down to a set of requirements. Currently the job of "pilot" is undergoing one of these questioning phases. While we require a human pilot on board, its recognized that in most situations the human is superfluous. We have even gotten to the point where a computer can land an aircraft in environments where a pilot would not be able to do so. However, we keep the human pilot. Why? Because we're not 100% confident that we've boiled down the job of "pilot" into requirements. There seems to be "something more" to the job besides takeoffs and landings. Something about authority and human compassion. So we keep innovating new automation tools, and we keep exploring what "pilot" could truly mean.
For these jobs where it is not clear whether a computer can replace a human, the process of replacement is much slower, and much more cultural. We start having to ask fuzzy concepts, like "what does it mean when a computer does 3/4 of the job?"
The arts will be the most difficult of these to gauge. They are so subjective that it is very hard to pin down requirements. It's never quite clear whether computers will ever make art on par with humans. While there's plenty of examples of horrid computer generated music out there, I'd like to draw attention to Yaskawa Bushido project. This was a collaboration between engineers from Mitsubishi and Isao Machii, a master of Iaijyutsi, developing finer controlled robotic arms. The final demonstration was a brutal form known as "Thousand Cuts." You can watch the video for yourself to see how well you think the computer did at this art. Myself, I pay great attention to Isao Machii's eyes and posture around the 4:30 mark in that video. Do you see any pride in his eyes for teaching this robot to do a little of his art? If a teacher can be proud of their student, that must always say something about both parties.
Jobs that cannot be automated are all those where human contact is an essential aspect. For example:
The relationship between therapist and client has been shown to be the single most powerful factor in the efficacy of psychotherapies, independent of the type of therapy. While AIs may become as intelligent (and emphatic) as humans, the knowledge that the therapist is a mere machine will devalue the relationship for the client to the point of breaking rapport.
This can already be seen in the fact that the majority of clients today prefer a face-to-face therapy to therapy over the telephone or the internet (through email and forum messages).
Students learn best if they like their teacher and feel appreciated. Again, AIs may become able to emulate or even feel love, but as long as teaching machines do not have consciousness a student will always prefer the appreciation of a human (or even animal) to that of a computer.
What is or is not automatable depends a bit on how good you make your AI/robots. If they're really good at approximating humans - that is, if they have a humanoid frame, with at least human-level strength and human-level dexterity, and have the cognitive capabilities equal to a human, then no, there isn't really any human job that couldn't be done as well or better than an AI/robot.
Where you'd look for human job opportunities is where the AI/robot fails to meet human-level specifications. For example, there currently isn't any robot that has the same versatile dexterity that the human hand has. If this continues to hold, any job which needs flexible fine-motor skills can't be automated. Another region where AI currently fails is emotional and interpersonal skills. Theoretically, there's no reason why we couldn't make a Chinese room AI that approximates a humans socio-emotional skills: it's just very hard to do so. If we continue failing at it for the next 2-3 decades, then jobs which need those skills (parent, care worker, priest, certain salesmen) won't be automated.
The other place to look is at jobs that depend on human failings. Usain Bolt has been clocked at a top speed of 27.7 mph. That's impressive for a human. It's not impressive for a Chevy Bolt. On the 100 m dash, a Chevy Bolt would beat Usain Bolt, easily. A human accurately multiplying two 6-digit numbers in their head is impressive. A computer doing so is not. In fact, if your computer can't correctly multiply two 9-digits numbers and get the right answer every time, throw it out and buy a new one - it's broken.
Take Watson on Jeopardy, for example. Its win was impressive, but it wasn't impressive for the same reasons Ken Jennings's wins were impressive. No one was impressed that Watson could buzz in faster than the two human opponents (although insiders will tell you buzzer control is an important part of the game). Also, no one was impressed that Watson had detailed knowledge of minutia: it's impressive that a person can remember what the capital of Upper Volta was in 1963. It's not impressive that a computer knows it. Instead, Watson was impressive because it was able to interpret natural language queries and the sly wordplay that Jeopardy is known for. But that's not impressive in a human. Just like knowledge about Ouagadougou is assumed for a trivia bot, being able to understand natural language is assumed for humans.
So Watson isn't a replacement for the humans playing Jeopardy, just like Deep Blue wasn't a replacement for people playing chess, and the Chevy Bolt isn't a replacement for Usain Bolt. We're interested in watching people in these competitions not because they're good at them in an absolute sense, but because they're overcoming our human limitations: an AI without those limitations isn't as interesting. No one wants to see the Shaq-bot sink perfect half-court shots all the time, every time.
Along those lines, jobs that depend on human cognitive biases are also safe. People have cognitive biases that view human-related things as better. A lumpy sweater is viewed as better because it show that it's hand made, as opposed to a perfect, machine-produced one. A car that was owned by a famous person is worth more than an identical one in better condition because our human cognitive biases assume some of the famous person has "rubbed off" onto the car. Places where you can exploit that cognitive bias will be less likely to be replaced. (A squeaky, slightly off key human orchestra is better than a pitch perfect robot one. A lopsided human-made haircut has more prestige than a perfectly coiffed robot-cut one. A wobbly, uncomfortable chair is "better" than an inexpensive, comfortable, mass-produced ones because it's made by a small group of artisans in the Pennsylvania countryside, carrying on a 200 year old tradition.)
Things like child care might fall into this category: the robot nanny may be in all measurable ways better for the development and emotional health of the child than a random human caretaker, but there's something about the "human touch" that people feel is missing from the AIs.
Yes. Prostitution. Making the assumption that computers will eventually be as smart as humans (it may take a while), there will still remain a human bias that demands human contact. There are certain activities where no matter how human the robot may appear or how good it's understanding of human behavior, people will still want to know that they are dealing with a real human being. There may be other jobs where this kind of bias is important, but prostitution is the most obvious.
In this answer I determine that a computer will have the power to simulate/emulate/become a human mind well within 30 years. A top supercomputer will be able to simulate the full “metabolome” (low level metabolic processes of all the guts of all the cells) of a human brain in 2045!
Given that an uploaded or artificial mind could have the same capability as a person used for comparison, and if tasking one of those to “figure it out” counts as automation, I have to answer No, there is no job that can’t be automated.
If you mean instead that there are things that can’t be done without a sentient mind, then there is probably a continuous scale of jobs that require ever more of that, and different aspects to what we call sentience, not all of which are needed for every job.
What can never be automated is jobs in industries whose main selling point is that they're not automated, and you're being served by a real live human being. Motorised taxis are cheaper and more efficient, but people still pay for scenic rides in a horse-drawn carriage. People go to Renaissance Fairs. There will always be an appetite for the quaint and retro, and that will include human service.
Despite the fact that the brain is ultimately just a machine and that AIs can in principle do any job, it will be difficult to automate jobs that requires human level intellect. The problem is that building an AI to do such jobs amounts to creating electronic humans who will be doing such jobs. So, humans will still do these jobs, albeit humans in electronic form.
Even if this sounds good enough, there is another problem. The whole reason why we want to automate jobs and can get away with doing that is because we're intelligent and we are able to exploit systems that are less intelligent than us. If we need to create a system that is as intelligent as we are, then that system will be as motivated as we are to not do the job him/her/itself and try to let someone/something else do it for itself.
But AIs will likely be able to rapidly expand their intelligence and become much smarter than us. Instead of them doing all the work, they'll end up building systems that will do whatever they desire. And with us around, they may decide to keep us as their slaves to do those jobs that are suitable for us to do.
Yes. Pretty much any job that requires communication between humans that is interpreted into a specification for work.
Programming has already been mentioned, though the act of specifying to an AI what it is that you want it to complete could be interpreted with reasonable accuracy, it is still ultimately subject to possible unintended interpretations. Even an extremely advanced AI will stumble over miscommunication from a handler.
Any manual crafts, such as carpentry, though a machine may be able complete the task in an effective manner; the expression used to request what is to be built requires a human at some point. Now, if the human omits explicit detail it's left to interpretation. So while you may ask for a chair for your son, unless the AI knows the age of your son, you could end up with a high chair, instead of a regular chair, or even a small chair for a child.
The biggest obstacle with automating jobs is when it comes to specifying with precision what you actually want. While humans are still able to misunderstand each other, there are hundreds of jobs safe from automation.
The point that you all missed here is the very own definition of automation.
a machine or control mechanism designed to follow automatically a
predetermined sequence of operations
So there is jobs which are clearly not a predetermined sequence. For example, in my job as a programmer often I have tasks in which I do not know beforehand what I have to do. I must first investigate and figure out what to do. So, not a predetermined sequence of operations.
These jobs cannot be automated since you cannot define a sequence beforehand. Can a robot still do jobs that are not automated? Maybe so.
Nevertheless, if you take automation as in 'any job but just done by a robot' then no. A robot could do anything given a complex enough brain. Wether it be a microprocessor or not. We're nothing but actuators tied to a brain after all.
Every job can be automated but not every job will be automated.
Humans will always prefer that some tasks be performed by a fellow human.
Off the top of my head, this would include any task that is:
service related - personal care, health care, spiritual care and many other tasks where a human needs emotional support
creativity related - art, music, comedy, writing and many others where human feelings cannot be simulated
competition related - sports, games, gambling (poker) and many others where pitting a human against another human is the task
authority related - parents, teachers, head of state (who decides when to go to war and when to launch nukes), basically anyone in charge of the health (physical, mental and spiritual) of any number of other beings
Additionally, I assume AI will work along with humans in just about every task much like humans extensively use computers to automate tasks today.
A tester, for developing a new product for humans that must be tested on human as an emotional or biological being.
Is this sequence of sounds a good music? Does this election candidate speech sound impressive? Are these controls of the new device convenient?
A machine could produce some test music, test text and test controls, but without human trying and evaluating, the result may be bearable but will be inferior.
So at least human tester is required. A human creator has benefit over machine because an artist can create and try many things in imagination only, saving lots of time that would be required to create a real specimen and present it for others to evaluate.
There is already an answer that the art may be such a job, but does not actually explain why and the current answer does not cover exclusively art.
A machine by its intrinsic nature can not create something from nothing.
While the human mind can, through its thoughts and abstract ideas.
The processes that generate this kind of thoughts are still not well understood by science and I think it is very unlikely that in the future its can be reproduced by machines.
This in the "human" slang is called, invent.
But to invent something new a human mind must explore new patterns of development that no one has ever thought of before.
For this there are geniuses in human history.
And machines at their best can do perfect copies (in any form) of what men creates with his own imagination.
(when that happens, I hope that our pets will not start a class action :D)
p.s.: read consecutively the words that i put in bolds and you will understand the essence of human mind.
I think (obviously all of this is only an idea ;) ) you look at the problem from the wrong point of view and I have not been able to express my pov well (is very hard to explain :D).
Basically, if you produce something that is better than you, you need more energy than what you spend for do it relative to that system. So if you produce an AI that is completely identical to you this mean that "it" should create a biological being that is in every way same as you from nothing (a dilemma, like dog that chasing its tail). The difference is that the AI (seen in the classic version of the term; built by transistors, microchips and programmed by commons programming languages, come from finite-state machine model, etc) have the problem that is completely made inside this system Universe and follow this mathematical rules, you (as human being) know exactly which initial state you put inside the machine.
Instead, Men's ideas don't fit it completely because our ideas are only packets of data, that can be transfer by an "outer" system (outside this Universe's rules). So the law can't be applied "as is" to our minds.
I read something about this topic, some time ago and there are plenty of experiments that the result isn't well explained with the laws that we know. For example i remember an experiment of a newborn baby that was putted in a white room with nothing inside it and after several years his mind produce something different that what he have seen in his life(white room, the system where he was placed).
This basically, can be defined as overunity system.
I really think that this can't be done by an AI (basically a more "smarter" common pc ) because it can't produce more or equal than itself and so, it will never be like a human scientist / inventor.
Even in an utopian, peaceful, post-scarcity world, there will still be important questions to answer and decisions to make. There will still be some kind of economy, diseases which are hard to cure (perhaps even plagues which are hard to contain), vagrants to police, organised crime to manage, education, politics, asteroid defences, rising sea levels, and so much more.
Perhaps we'll have real strong AI, perhaps we won't. Even if we do, and even if these questions can be answered highly successfully, the implementation of our AIs' policies will not be flawless. There will inevitably be mistakes.
And when there are mistakes, we'll want someone to blame. Someone human.
So even if the future president of Oceania does nothing more than sign what his robot advisers pass to him, that role will be essential when it comes time for the human masses to impeach someone.
I think it's important we look at the risks of automation in terms of probability rather than absolutes, and this was the way contemporary professions were analysed by a study from Oxford University in association with Citi.
To protect against jobs being eliminated due to automation, it is
important to recognize which characteristics are most likely to be
associated with a given job being automated — perception and
manipulation, creative intelligence, and social intelligence are the
three bottlenecks to automation.
The report is very long and detailed, discussing macro economic possibilities, but the risk of specific jobs being automated is summarised and listed elsewhere. There are as many jobs at low risk of automation as high, and the less likely ones are those involved in the arts, science, engineering, sport, and medical care.
But even these jobs are unlikely to be unaffected, as many white collar professionals are likely to be replaced or augmented by thinking machines... for example, a doctor can't know every single possibility from the symptoms a patient describes, and so a machine which can analyse all of the known possibilities against the symptoms will help doctors by increasing productivity. But even with something like a medical tricorder there are still doctors in Star Trek.
I realize this question has garnered quite a lot of responses, but I feel that something may be missing.
In Philip K Dick's "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", most of the world's ecosystem had been devastated by World War Terminus, and few things can actually live on the planet anymore. As a result, androids were created to tend to the tasks to dangerous for humans to perform, and the androids performed them quite well. So well, in fact, that there was an offshoot of android development which made non-humanoid androids as pets, such as cats, dogs, horses, and of course, sheep.
Throughout the book it is firmly established that biological pets are worth a great deal more than android pets. The protagonist expresses a great deal of disappointment when discovering an animal in a desolate wasteland and finding that it has a control panel.
I don't think we will ever truly be able to replace the need for human contact. Just look at how things are today: the Internet gives us unlimited "contact" with other human beings, but interesting discussions on Stack Exchange pale in comparison with sharing a drink with your friends. Likewise, we can live our lives completely alone and entertain ourselves endlessly with multimedia streaming services like YouTube, Spotify, Netflix, and we have more pornography than could be watched in several lifetimes. And yet, people are lonelier than ever.
Even a perfect sex bot will never 100% replace the primal craving for a living, breathing, human being.
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an effective procedure (i.e., an algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the arithmetic of the natural numbers. For any such formal system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that the system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.
If we assume computers as they are to be Turing machines, then no. If we create biological computers or such that deal with true randomness, then we may not know. They are not deterministic as logic is, but I do not think that it is wise to build systems that work on randomness and do not need to care about rules. Although: are people actually intelligent in a sense that they are not working on a set of axiomatic rules? Can we call humans just artificial intelligence that is more stochastic and less constrained than the computer?
You might haven't thought about it as a job, but consumers make our society (or at least our economy) work. With no consumption there is no point creating goods, and without creating and selling goods economy would collapse.
Let's say in 50 years - due to the advanced automation -, ten percent of mankind is required to provide goods, bank services and everything else for the (let's say) ten billion people. Now you might think the rest would become obsolete, and they might be left to die. But let's just assume, this happens! Nine billion people left unemployed, so have no salary. It would also cause nine billion consumers disappearing. Without them, industry, agriculture and services can work at 10% efficiency, which means, sooner-or-later 90% of the working people would lose their jobs. Our scenario becomes like... a hundred million people with jobs, nine hundred million new unemployed and nine billion left on the roadside long ago, but... if there are only a hundred million consumers, 90% of the producing capacity is obsolete...
I don't believe it is possible for a computer to be able to write jokes like a human can. Here's why, but bear in mind that the author asks for tasks than can be "automated". I don't believe a 1:1 human AI means "automated" -- I'm taking that world to mean that an algorithm was produced by humans to complete a task, not that a perfect AI was created, that was human in every way (emotionally/intellectually), that could handle any task.
The reason I think this is because humour, like all art, requires a certain unique perspective. We listen to comedians and their take on the world, and we relate to that experience, as another human experiencing similar things. The creativity required to maintain a cohesive perspective that we could relate to is beyond automation. Observations generated in that way would feel false and hollow to the listener, as part of the joy of listening to a comedian is appreciating their unique perspective on things.
Ok so there are a few occupations that could not be automated. Massage therapist for instance. You can have a robot perform manual therapy, but it's effects on the human body would not be the same as human touch. I would also lean toward a judge or lawyer also requiring human experience in order to be able to make a fair decision that considers human experience factors in making such a decision.
you limit the meaning of job to things that we humans can do and jobs that are developed out of these kind of jobs, as far as we know, we ourselves are computers that react to our environment, and so it is possible to built an AI that is as capable as we are and that can do what we can do. Even if our current way to built computers won't allow for AI that could keep up with us, there is no reason why we shouldn't be able to rebuild brains themselves.
What you could do is define a job as every job that is thinkable, that would include for example making a cable with infinity lenght, this would be as impossible for AI as for us.
So back to your question, every job could be done by AI as well as humans can do it and better, however it probably will never happen, because humans like to create and work on stuff.
If we reach that lvl of automation, it will likely be that every job, that isn't creative and that no one really wants to do, will be done by machines and humans will do the rest, protected by law to not be outrun by AI systems.