Unless the world is so desirable that average people with sufficient training and supervision can't improve it, we should care more about re-purposing wealth than having no more jobs for people to do.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
Note: In the long run, if robotics and AI become so advanced that there is little need for average people, then a high level of basic income should be the norm and most people would be free to pursue their hobbies and social life full-time.
Attention, i think this is a fallacy in multiple aspects. Maybe they don't produce more, just higher quality? On the other hand you have jobs where more is never enough, e.g. Scientists.
Also, not all scientists are blue-sky researchers. Many do lab work, diagnose disease or provide services to patients. Others perform field tests or public outreach. Or they teach. Augmenting these people does replace people as fewer scientists are needed to perform a service once performed by many.
The author of the article gives the example of a type of eye surgery only possible through augmentation of the surgeon.
Without augmentation, the surgery isn't possible.
It illustrates that for at least some things "higher quality" isn't the same as "higher production".
Unless instead of calling this "higher quality" it's better termed something else. "Previously unavailable products/results/quality?"
The person now has a greater output which means you need less of them.
Then you get back to the same old argument
In the past we have dealt with this by increasing consumption.
But we are hitting limits on increasing consumption at the same rate we are losing jobs. The world can't handle it and not everyone can create art.