**Problem definition and refinement.**

Assuming that humans (or whatever constitutes "us") remain as decision-makers when it comes to defining *what* problems should be solved, e.g. what type of life we want to enjoy, what we would like the world to look like, what makes us happy, etc, we would **specify** (and most importantly give feedback on) those specific goals, objectives, and keep **refining**  and adapting them to [evolving preferences][1] of the human condition.

One could easily argue that the above constitutes **work** (as it does today), and can definitely have a meaningful and significant impact in the economy and the general computation & work done by our society. Note that we call the above *programming* or *machine learning* (~programming from data) in today's world.

Nowhere is written that our goals in life will remain fixed. In fact, the opposite is [quite more likely][2]. But perhaps most importantly, *inferring* (estimating) what constitutes joy, and our goals and preferences with varying time horizons, and as we evolve over time, may be an [**unsolvable problem**][3], and thus require infinite time and our continuous, and not-necessarily-conscious, input.


  [1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
  [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill
  [3]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undecidable_problem