Jobs which are specifically about being a human seem like they can't be automated, like actors, waiters, athletes, sex workers.

I sincerely doubt anyone would watch or care about fake AI generated sports.

Well, people pay for fake sports, and pay for fiction (i.e. fake stories) in movies/TV/books.

Not much of a stretch that a competent AI could generate good enough content, given the sludge currently making money out there ...

What AI is likely to do is distract people from the continued accumulation of wealth and power. Reinforce the notion that it's "fair" (everyone else can be automated after all). And provide a cap to your wages (if the machine could do it with 50 MWh of power, then your salary will logically have to be lower than that, even if the machine doesn't actually exist YET).

The cotton loom didn’t present itself as a means of accumulating wealth and power, but yet it did. Why would you pay a group of people that much to weave when a cotton loom can do the work of 10?

Anything that makes things easier will reduce the number of jobs.

Smart phones improved billions of lives and displaced a relatively small number of jobs. Global shipping routes decimated hundreds of towns and cities, many of which still haven't recovered decades later, with 90% of the benefits going to 1% of the population.

There are massive ranges possible on the winner and loser sides of any new technology equation. I'd argue that widespread AI will cause broad harm and very concentrated gains, which I think will be very bad for society on the whole.