Your only reference [1] is to a page where anybody in the world can join and vote. It literally means absolutely nothing.
For [2] you have no reference whatsoever. How does AI replace a nurse, a vet, a teacher, a construction worker?
For [2] you have no reference whatsoever. How does AI replace a nurse, a vet, a teacher, a construction worker?
I'm afraid it's really a matter of faith, in either direction, to predict whether an AI can take over the autonomous decision making and robotic systems can take over physical actions which are currently delegated to human professions. And, I think many robotic control problems are inherently solved if we have sufficient AI advancement.
Median forecasts indicated a 50% probability of AI systems being capable of automating 90% of current human tasks in 25 years and 99% of current human tasks in 50 years[1]
The scope of work replaceable by embodied AGI and the speed of AGI saturation of vastly under estimated. The bottle necks are production of a replacement workforce, not retraining human laborers.
A world of 99 percent of jobs being done by AGI (which there remains no convincing grounds for how this tech would ever be achieved) feels ungrounded in the reality of human experience. Dignity, rank, purpose etc are irreducible properties of a functional society, which work currently enables.
It's far more likely that we'll hit some kind of machine intelligence threshold before we see a massive social pushback. This may even be sooner than we think.
Why would hearing "work is central to identity," and "work is the primary social mechanism that distributes status amongst communities," change my mind?
If AI doing everything means that we'll finally have a truly egalitarian society where everyone is equal in dignity and rank, I'd say the faster we get there, the better.