There is exactly 1 reason why AI will not replace every job.

There is (as far as I can see) exactly one reason why I am not afraid of AI replacing all human jobs. (There are a lot different reasons offered, I'm not at all sure I agree those reasons are right). <br><br>To explain, I am bringing up a different field (forestery). For practical purposes, let's assume that different forest management plans are completely independent - I.e., what type of trees do you put in lott A doesn't change what sort of trees you should plant in lot B. In this situation, you can actually look at every single combination of trees you could put in every lot (we can't because it's not actually independent, but that's irrelevant for the purposes of this argument). What type of trees do you want to put lott B (regardless of what sort of trees you put in lot A)?<br><br>Well, one option is to put the absolute best trees in lot B. This is the option we are at right now. In other words, we (humans) have a job we are very good at. Right now we are different from trees though: so long as there is demand for a human's job, so long as that job exists. Think about new babies - new humans being born are completely independent of what jobs are out there. <br><br>That's the big difference between humans and trees - lott B doesn't have to have the best trees, it can have whatever trees it wants. So long as there is human demand for a job that human does (regardless of whether that job can be done by a robot), then a human can still have that job. This is lott B having whatever trees it wants. We could turn every sort of job into a human facing job if that's what we wanted. <br><br>Right now, obviously, the most important thing is to make sure lott A lott B, and lott C all have the best trees possible. In other words, we want hospitals to be run as effectively as possible, schools as good as they can be, grocery stores as well run as possible, etc. However, once the quality of those things aren't in jeopardy (because they're all run the best they can be), we can stop caring about that. We could care about other things, like say, what the experience is like to go through a lott. So right now the lot B experience (going to a grocery store) is about efficiency and cost. And that's fine because different lot's don't get the best trees yet. But once we get to a point where the grocery stores are running so smoothly, the nurses are taking care of us so well, the schools are teaching us so well, the cars so well built, and the food so well made. Then we can worry about making lott B the lott we would choose, not the best lott. In other words, we would put any person in a lott so long as we like the lot with that person in it. This could be because the job is very hard, or because the person is very interesting to get to know, or whatever reason. We would still have jobs so long as humans wanted to have those jobs, not because they were the best, but because they were **something else**. <br><br>That's my theory.