I think this is ridiculously flippant. If software engineering and the hardest math is solved, that means that eventually a majority of professions and knowledge work is solved. This is hugely problematic because of the way our society currently functions. People need jobs to eat, pay for housing, etc.

Dismissing it as "innovations have happened before" is disingenuous. Yes, innovations have happened, but none of those threatened to automate all human work in existence.

> that means that eventually a majority of professions and knowledge work is solved. This is hugely problematic because of the way our society currently functions.

Our society has functioned very differently in the past, precisely because the technology level made some things viable (or profitable) that aren't so anymore.

One would hope that, rather than abandoning technological progress, we'll rather adjust our society to it.

I mean, seriously, read what you just wrote. You're literally saying that solving scarcity is a problem because of the way our society currently functions - because people "need jobs to eat, pay for housing, etc". And you're correct! But what does it tell you about our society that robots capable of producing everything that humans might need is a problem for it?

Our current society will certainly not survive. Read Mark Fisher’s capitalist realism. You’re right that all most works are “cooked.”

Elites will be the ones that hold the capital.

I was just having this conversation with someone. It's less sadness for me and more dread though. All of the sudden, everyone's technical expertise and the things that they spent their life getting good at, are accessible by everyone.

I don't know if this makes sense as a society. Say whatever about what it means ethically, legally, etc., but I'm not sure this kind of thing is sustainable in the long run for a functioning society.

It only doesn’t make sense with our current economic framework. I think we need UBI soon or we risk having a massive crisis