The thing that is important to keep in mind with advancements like this is that comparative advantage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https

The thing that is important to keep in mind with advancements like this is that comparative advantage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage) continues to exist. The most unintuitive thing about it is that everyone has a comparative advantage; this isn't because of absolute advantage or capacity, but because of scarcity and opportunity costs. An AI can become better than us at everything they do - gaining an absolute productivity advantage - and human labor will still be necessary, and even valuable. It's unintuitive, for sure, but so long as scarcity exists, it remains. The reason for this is simple: given an AI which can produce two goods, X and Y, faster and better than humans, one might think that all the world's X and Y needs could be satisfied. But this isn't the case, because resources (including time) are finite, and the AI must choose to produce X or Y with any given set of resources (electricity, GPUs, time, whatever). By producing X (which, let's say, it's better at, or is more valuable per unit of resources input), it can achieve optimal absolute output, but this comes at the cost of not producing Y. So long as the demand for Y remains unchanged, there is a need for some other agent to produce Y. This is the human's comparative advantage in Y production. In short: the total sum of X+Y produced is greater when the AI produces X and the human produces Y, even though the AI is better at producing both, because the AI's opportunity cost of producing Y over X is greater than the cost to import Y from the human. The human can import X from the AI and produce Y and end up with a greater quantity of both than if they tried to create or import both X and Y. Might this mean a reduction in language-oriented jobs for humans? Certainly, even probably. Retraining and exploration of new careers will be necessary. We can expect jobs to go away, and new jobs to be created; the personal computer and word processor flat out killed the entire typist industry, but created a dizzying array of new opportunities. If you stay still, you'll certainly be left behind, but I don't think we're at the point that we need to worry about human obsolescence any time soon. (Of course, if we reach the point where all demanded resources can be produced without any effective opportunity cost, then we've achieved post-scarcity, and all bets are off, but that's not anywhere nearly as simple as just cranking a productivity multiplier up.)