Thank you for your comment!
I apologise if it did not seem academic enough, but a concern of mine was accessibility in order to ensure a wider audience.
With regards to your specific points:
Musk has repeatedly given interviews on his fears of mass unemployment as a result of AI and has specifically cited Bostrom regarding his understanding of Artificial Intelligence on numerous occassions. I understand what you mean with regards to his worries, but my concern was regarding the philosophical backbone to these, which I find paramount to the more technical aspects.
I would like to raise issues with your McDonald’s example as that hasn’t resulted in job losses, but added units in order to increase productivity. My examples were given to highlight that AI is complementary, but that it is unlikely to replace human labour on a wide scale. Destruction of specific jobs does not equal job destruction on net.
I would also like to refer you to the McKinsey report when you say that these skills aren’t required in 90% of employment, as my estimate is much lower, and that job creation is guaranteed in these sectors, especially given an ageing population that requires palliative care.
With regards to the doctors point, as I stated in my article, the chief value add of doctors is not automatible, despite a significant amount of their labour being so, this suggests complement, not replacement.
For more detailed look at the ideas I present, I will refer you to my study on the topic that I link here, it’s probably more of the caliber that you desired.