> The most important part which is wrong however is the idea that people who never contributed much would easily find economically equivalent work.
There is a name for that opinion: luddism.
Every single new technology shifts jobs and work, and every single time people fantasize about permanent structural unemployment, and every single time people just move into new types of work and there is no such thing as structural unemployment. Luddites back then could never imagine a world where less than 95% of people worked in agriculture, and today's neo luddites cant imagine a world without hordes of graphic artists, paralegal functionaries, music techs, and such, but its coming regardless.
Fundamentally, what people are willing to pay for always comes down to work done by others. Things that are automated, at best, shape how people work, and what work attracts more or less pay. Just as a shovel helps you to dig, a DNN helps you slop out boilerplate text with errors, so you dont need to pay as many people to do it.
These two fundamentals never change when a new tool or technology is used
* some people get more productive to some degree using the new tools
* That frees up labor to do new things, and the economy as a whole grows, because the new things have value
Its possible there will be a growing field of content curation; The DNN's & LLM's basically explode when their outputs are fed back their inputs. So instead of making tons of derivative works de novo, many creative types will instead become art critics; helping to curate an input set to train the machines that synthesize generated works.
