The cant of this article is kind of grossing me out. I don't disagree with the predictions of this, but I reject the notion of people as being "useless" because they can't interface with technology. Such a position is a paperclip maximizer (https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) of efficiency. There are other worthwhile things.
Are artists useless unless they can produce design? Are "idiot" friends who make us laugh but are generally low-achieving "useless"?
They are economically useless - not useless as people. In fact, that's kind of the point. Here's a quote from Andreessen that highlights that potential:
“Imagine six, or 10 billion people doing nothing but arts and sciences, culture and exploring and learning. What a world that would be.”
“Imagine six, or 10 billion people doing nothing but arts and sciences, culture and exploring and learning. What a world that would be.”
This kind of reminds me of the people I've met that want to start a company, but don't seem to realize that 99% of it is going to involve tasks that are not fun or enjoyable.
For a successful society, we need people doing work that nobody else wants to do, so we have can have successful artists and people that want to explore.
I think being a great scientist or artist revolves around doing repetitive tasks that aren't not fun or enjoyable. I believe people want to do difficult jobs, as long as they're meaningful.
True, but what about the jobs that aren't meaningful, but still need to be done? and what about the people that aren't capable of being an artist or a scientist?
Any job that matters is meaningful. But that still leaves many working a bullshit job. That's no fun. As for people who aren't capable of becoming artists or scientists, which I think would be a small % of people, well I hope they have UBI and can live happily.
Are artists useless unless they can produce design? Are "idiot" friends who make us laugh but are generally low-achieving "useless"?