Yes, this. As machines get more capable, the economic role of humans diminish. This is analagous to the fate of horses after the introduction of the internal combustion engine.
Most everyone on this site has the education and skills to stay ahead of the AI revolution for some time. But many other people already have fallen behind. If the only things you know how to do can be done by machines at less cost than a living wage, then what hope do you have to compete?
> As machines get more capable, the economic role of humans diminish.
Empirical data shows the opposite. Machines have been getting more capable for at least 100 years, and job creation has soared. Even if you just look at a snapshot of data from today, the societies with the most capable machines are also the societies with the best standards of living and lowest unemployment rates.
No thats not what empirical data is showing. You need to account for a couple of really really important factors.
1) Population growth
2) Globalization
3) Technological acceleration
4) Cost of switching to automation
5) Monetary policies to keep economy going
6) The way employment are measured
Unemployment rates aren't what you think they are. In the US 95% of the jobs created since 2010 are temp jobs not actual structurally solid jobs. Furthermore the wages are stagnating while the cost of living is soaring.
So you are looking at this from the wrong angel. Empirical data all points to the fact that humans in normal jobs makes less and less money because their role as a function of the given industry are diminishing. Only a small group of people actually experience growth (and accelerating too).
Most everyone on this site has the education and skills to stay ahead of the AI revolution for some time. But many other people already have fallen behind. If the only things you know how to do can be done by machines at less cost than a living wage, then what hope do you have to compete?