AI Could Make Human Workers 'Obsolete' But Not Jobless
Your job might become a luxury, not a necessity—here's why that matters.
is advancing quickly, and within 1–3 years, it could outperform humans at almost any task. People often say this will lead to 'no jobs,' but that's misleading. Instead, we might live in a world where humans are rarely the best choice for getting things done. Machines already fill ketchup bottles and move dirt, but humans moved to other work. Now, that list of human-only work is shrinking fast.
In this future, people will still pay others for things they prefer humans to do—like a concert where you want a real person singing, not a recording. Handmade goods and personal services might thrive. But the problem is that these 'human-preferred' jobs may not pay enough to cover basic needs like food and shelter. The author argues that terms like 'obsolescence' are too absolute; the real issue is that the price of human labor could fall below the cost of survival.
The author asks for better terms to describe this scenario. Suggestions include 'below rice wages' or 'non-load-bearing' (meaning humans aren't essential for production). Some argue that 'zero marginal product' fits, but others say it's wrong because handmade goods still have value. The bigger concern is that AI developers don't know how to control their systems, and their plan is to delegate that control to the AI itself—a risky bet.
Ultimately, the piece is a call to think more clearly about a future where human work is optional but human needs remain. The words we use shape how we prepare for that world.
- AI may soon do almost everything better than humans, but people will still pay for human-performed services and goods.
- The real risk is that human labor becomes too cheap to cover basic needs, not that all jobs disappear.
- We lack good language to describe this future, which makes it harder to plan for.
Why It Matters
Your job could become a luxury, so we need new ways to ensure everyone's basic needs are met.