As a consequence, it seems pointless to work at a job. The local optima are either hedonism-maxxing or capital-maxxing, any middle ground seems like a foolish enterprise when all that effort over marginal returns won't matter soon.
NOTE: If you disagree with this premise, please provide actual evidence that the trends in improvement in AI models will not continue, and will peak at Mythos level somehow. Do not just assume that things will remain the same despite that not having been the case for the last few years.
There will be plumber robots though. They will break pipes and flood houses for a few iterations. Move fast and break the pipes. That might be a fun poll, how many here would allow a plumber robot in their home.
[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucjurQUHO8 [video][6 mins][language]
You mean a programming job? Or all jobs?
People working as house painters, plumbers, farmers, chefs, engineers, architects, cops, soldiers, nurses and doctors aren't going to be irrelevant in 3 years, let alone 30. I think you're projecting your experience on the rest of the world, most of whom will be unaffected by LLMs in the short-term future.
For example, one part of a job is the satisfaction, the purpose, the meaning of life derived from being useful. Not having that can be pretty bad for people. So, even if the machines take over a lot of what is done by people today, you'll probably want to find a way of being useful.
Hedonism and wealth are both remarkably bad at delivering the same contentment that being useful does. That said, of course, a bit of hedonism and capital is also good.
> If you disagree with this premise, please provide actual evidence
That's not the way that works. You're the one making the positive claim, it's on you to provide evidence to support your claim.
But IF you were going to try to do some calculus on how to live in preparation for the future, you might want to consider the unsustainable habitat that climate breakdown is causing in the current now and near future.
Sure anything is possible, I'm not anti ai or llm by any means (just go look at my post history), and marvel at the thought of what agi/asi could look like. Philosophically, it is interesting to me. And I don't use the word "philosophy" to trivialize the concept. It genuinely is interesting to me.
But at the same time you should be aware that AGI is largely a concept that has been deeply inflated by play-acting radical Effective Altruists that have effectively reinvented / modernized Pascals Wager. The wake of generative llms is going to eventually recede (as all new technologies, even transformative ones) and leave us with a lot of extremely useful tools, a couple of bag holders and new and interesting processes for all sorts of automatable tasks.
These tools will not solve the climate catastrophe. The frontier AI labs want you to believe they will. But it's likely (if not certainly) that we cannot just technology our way out of this one.
Consider what life might look like with mass migrations and upward pressure from the global south, mega floods in some regions, mega droughts in others, and persistent wildfires that occupy most of the United States.
You don't have to consider too hard: this is already happening.