A great way of thinking. And given that History repeats itself (if only due to our ability to only marginally deviate from standard — previously implemented — behaviours each time around), I like the way that you propose that History indicates this lifestyle is feasible.
However, I am compelled to suggest (or add) a few points to this whole concept, if I may.
Empirical data, is often undocumented or discarded as a useless bucket of incomprehensible jargon, altogether. Eventually, omitted from the process. Omission is, at times, a great problem in all aspects of life. In the case of AI or any other great advancement that is under way, we should try to avoid this path of “omission”.
For example, the educational system in Greece, has for decades taught us that any lack of balance between education and production leads to a host of other problems, either social or not. Unemployment of new scientists or professionals due to saturation of specific scientific or productive sectors is one of them.
As you suggest, we should care for those that are about to lose their jobs or lifestyles (if only to protect our own). At another point in time, it could be our turn to give up our jobs.
What got me to respond was in great part that we need the product of this menial and/or repetitive work that many people gracefully offer. Science, arts and R&D alone, won’t really cut it. We need all the handiwork that machines cannot produce. I mean, what about buildings maintenance, waste collection. It is, as you conclude, evident that AI won’t be able to replace these people any time soon. But, what shot will these people have at this “ideal” lifestyle described? Not so good, I presume. We need to solve this.
What I surmise from your article, and has really troubled be in the past few years, is “how will traditional professions that are essential to our every day life, survive Progress and even catch up with it”?
My suggestion, if any, in an entrepreneurial fashion even, would be to “meticulously” reinvent these professions in such a manner that will enable us to integrate current practices and tech. I have already seen it happen here and there, though in minuscule amounts in most cases. A good example is low powered electric fold-able scooters replacing bicycles in the city, facilitating every day commute, augmented with the use of subways and so on. Or four seasons fabrics for clothing.
But again, what of buildings maintenance or waste collection, etc? This is a type of problem that we, the people, need to work out with all the nuances and variables. Of course, I don’t mean robotic broomsticks and motorized sledge hammers. We already have rust buckets on wheels. I would much prefer an incentive to not have an all that widespread use of AI. Productivity and facilitation, yes. Replacement? As you already said, no. It would dull out our minds too much.
And it strikes me as odd to have to wait for AI to be efficient enough, to do this for us. After all, our “AI” will always have a thing or two to say about our true “I”. Won’t it?
Thank you for your time, everyone.