>>16043005Yes.
Same reason cameras didn't kill paintings, just diverted away from pure realism.
Human effort will re-divert and adapt to whatever can't be automated, as it's always done.
The only problem is that AI may overspecialize skilled work by axing all the mediocre workers and discouraging learning.
Basically, unless you're a master at something, your work won't be valuable, the investment may not be worth it at that point.
Likewise, there's a greater risk for a cultural shift where the human obsolescence issue becomes even broadened by this lack of general technical knowledge.
The more a machine does for you, the more user friendly something is, the less your average person is interested in how it works.
See: phonefags wielding the 90s-2000 equivalent of an insane supercomputer who can't even extract a damn file.
Take that thought, and apply it to every discipline and technical expertise you can think of. It's pretty bad.
What's more, we're due for a civilization collapse. And I don't think any brain crippes the future world will produce are going to make it through.
