We also invent imaginary problems to solve, which is rather frustrating. For example, the supremely complicated tax code in the USA would be infeasible without modern computer automation.

What about the people who aren't so creative?

Sure, the best of us will be fine, but that's always been the case. What about the ones who are struggling to remain relevant today? They'll get left behind unless something's done-- I'm not sure that retraining will be enough, not that there's any political movement in that direction.

Those who are more creative will create ways for the less creative to contribute. It's not like the tech sector is made up entirely of creative geniuses, or even entirely of engineers, there's plenty of other jobs built around those creative endeavors that require varying skillsets.

Any bureaucracy seems like a move in that direction.

Its not just about finding new things to do. Huge areas of jobs are about to be obsoleted and there won't immediately be vacancies that offer pay for those left out. For example: when self driving auto technology replaces delivery trucks, what will the truck drivers be doing?

You are probably overestimating the speed at which these new technologies destroy jobs. It's not like today someone invents a self driving rig, tomorrow every single truck driver is out of business. Adoption won't be so fast.

It'll be a while before anyone is going to trust a load of valuable goods with an AI. There are security/theft issues, edgecase AI failure issues, loading unloading, etc.

We've seen entire industries leave the USA. Probably within your lifetime.

That said this can have devastating effects on economies. A lot of cities in the rust belt have felt this impact.

But the opposite can happen. One of the huge reasons US companies offshore production is because of labor costs. If you reduce the man-hours / product, it makes sense to open back up domestically.

I agree that in the short term there are things society will have to do to help people who's skills are being obsoleted, but in the long run I'm not afraid of humanity running out of stuff to do.

It's exactly this short term that's the problem. Long-term we'll all be merry and living in cloud cities on Venus. If we get there. If enough people suddenly find themselves obsolete, our civilization may not survive short-term.

We can sell insurance to each other.

Can you please point to the section where this evidence is provided?

Last paragraph in the wikipedia section:

"Research by the Oxford Martin School showed that employees engaged in "tasks following well-defined procedures that can easily be performed by sophisticated algorithms" are at risk of displacement. The study, published in 2013, shows that automation can affect both skilled and unskilled work and both high and low-paying occupations; however, low-paid physical occupations are most at risk.[7] However, according to a study published in McKinsey Quarterly[63] in 2015 the impact of computerization in most cases is not replacement of employees but automation of portions of the tasks they perform"

Oxford or McKinsey Quarterly, which source do you prefer?