> People do not follow certain content creators because they are the most economically efficient and provide the “best” information, they follow them for largely human reasons.
You recon? I think most of this today is algorithmic, while for most of the 1900s it was effectively a lottery.
> Ergo I think the large shift will not be from jobs to no-jobs, but from jobs to entertainment-based jobs. In a world where everyone’s basic needs are met, the result is an attention-driven economy, not no economy.
Peacocking will still be thing[0], but I don't expect it to go the way you describe.
Even with your assumption, we cannot all be creators. At best we can signal to each other how "refined" we are, that we "have good taste", but we'd already passed from the age of writing poems or playing instruments as a primary way to woo others to one of sharing mix-tapes before I was born (and from mixtapes to playlists now).
Instead, I think we may have a world where the super-rich pay for humans to be valets to show they can afford it, where those humans themselves are "forced to get by" with robots who do a better job of it, in much the same way and for much the same reason that a $20 Casio F-91W keeps better time than a $20k Rolex or a $200k Omega (and of course, your phone or smartwatch is constantly syncing with someone else's atomic clock).
[0] and indeed, I think this is the only correct argument for the claim "AI can't ever make art": to the extent that the point of art is to be an expensive signal (rather than merely "pretty"), then AI can only be that when it's unaffordable.
I think the conflict between "is art the signal" or "is art the stuff" is a similar pattern to the arguments over "if a tree falling when nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" being secretly about "does 'sound' mean the vibrations in the air or is it your qualia caused by that?"