[bryanlarsen]

If you stuck an AGI inside a Boston Dynamics robot and trained it on a trade I suspect it could replace much of that trade. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e1_QhJ1EhQ

Not an easy problem, but the assumption is that AGI makes solving such problems tractable.

Japan has been working on healthcare robots for decades.

I think the key word is that the robots "could" replace 95% of economically valuable work, not that they will. Using an example from today: we can and have replaced fast food order takers with kiosks, but there are still a lot of people employed as fast food order takers because that's what customers prefer.

[joshspankit]

Yes, but...

There are unknown issues down that road. Given 1000 years AI could probably replace all work, but I think we’re all on the same page of “could AI replace 95% of work within a timespan that’s meaningful to people alive today?”, and in that term the realization of an AI-powered machine doing all manual labour (even an AGI one) still has a too many unknowns for a meaningful answer.

We were “going to have flying cars in X” for a long time, but it turned out that building a flying car was not actually the problem that needed to be solved in order to make them viable.

[ChatGTP]

It is also not necessarily what people want.

I do think social mobility from being able to work is something people want. I think AI researchers want to feel important and like they have purpose. As they start to realize that will all vanish once they invent AGI, it will be interesting to see how they proceed.

I think human augmentation is far more attractive and will be a more popular field of endevour, if we workout how to get better at it.