I saw a post recently on LinkedIn from a designer, and I thought it was remarkably accurate. It basically said that AI was going to eliminate a lot of the "low

I saw a post recently on LinkedIn from a designer, and I thought it was remarkably accurate. It basically said that AI was going to eliminate a lot of the "low value" creative jobs that don't actually have a lot of creativity: e.g. technical writing and illustration that really serves just to summarize some application (AI is great at summarization), social media ad copy, etc. But, the weird part to me is that this guy said he was optimistic because he works with world class designers and writers who will be able to use AI to enhance their creativity. I agreed with that statement, but I completely don't understand his optimism given obviously the vast majority of creatives (or really, any occupation) are not "world class", by definition. AI will just set a much higher bar for being able to contribute economically. We're basically headed to a world where most non-physical occupations look like professional sports or acting. That is, a world where a few "stars" that are unique in their abilities vacuum up the vast, vast majority of the money, and everyone else can essentially have their skills replicated, and thus replaced, by AI. The reason I think the AI optimists are full of shit is because I've never seen a decent response to this argument. Usually I just get something hand-wavy, or worse, "well people at the bottom will just need to up-skill and become world class." Yeah, just tell everyone to be in the top 5%, that makes mathematical sense...