Aggregating the views of 2,778 top AI researchers, a survey released in January puts “the chance of unaided machines outperforming humans in every possible task” at 10 per cent by 2027 and 50 per cent by 2047—if science continues unabated. This stunning forecast underscores urgent questions about how best to regulate AI-driven job automation and manage its destabilising effects. But there is a different, more philosophical question worth asking: suppose we could magically achieve a seamless transition to the hyper-automated future that AI seems to promise, avoiding all harm and disruption in the process— is this a world we should want to live in?
Is there value in humans performing the tasks that make societies function, many of which may soon be done better and more efficiently by machines?