Until those who don't own capital get upset and put the whole thing on fire.
But I don't think this video was meant to cover this case, and in the more pessimistic predictions you are not better with any other profession either. Given his assumptions I think it is an absolutely fair take. If AI becomes better in all 4 areas of math he lists, then private funding may decrease - BUT if there is ever any need for human problem solving skills, academia will not break down and this has always been the majority where mathematicians are employed/financed from.
And if this latter assumption breaks, we are in far greater trouble than whatever you chosen as a career and society will become unrecognizable to today's.
> and other AI systems buying from each other
there is no difference between AI bro and a taliban, both methods of thinking are deranged, inhumane and show a grim future for the world at large
might as well as replace AI with god and you will understand what I mean
It can easily reorient itself (and arguably, already has) to serving the demand of a small minority of asset owners rather than the majority of people. E.g. people building luxury yachts and working to maintain them, working in luxury restaurants, maintaining luxury gardens etc. instead of working in roles that improve the lives of the majority.
Because most people are working on things that improve the lives of the asset-owning minority and not of the majority, the standard of living of the majority is not improved, they have to work more for less.
How many high-paying jobs today actually do anything that benefits the 'common man'?
So unless there is a change towards UBI in your take (which is still not an all around solution. Many people only fit properly in a society because they are occupied 8 hours a day with something), that will probably result in the biggest revolution ever seen.
And there is not enough high walls to save the rich from that.
Why do you think those assets are valuable?
>How many high-paying jobs today actually do anything that benefits the 'common man'?
I agree there's a lot of inequality and ridiculous pointless jobs, but the average person (in the developed world) still has access to a cornucopia of goods and services which they purchase.
it's comments like this that make me wish ecology (and trophic chains) was taught in school. It teaches a valuable lessons on systems, energy flows, consumers and producers.
No one knows exactly what happens if you scale that up to the entire planet, but my view: the owners will be the ones who trade because of the resources available on their territory - or technology they own. You get a few powerful rentier states, where citizens get stuff for free so they don't revolt. Everyone outside of those states becomes part of a stagnant periphery.
But, if I get the insinuation, this would still require a huge social change to absorb once broad consumer demand falls off.
As for pursuing math for fun: that would turn most disciplines into something akin to speedrunning, chess, or mountaineering. People would add constraints to make it harder for themselves and compete against each other, and that does motivate some - but not all. A lot of people want to be "on the frontier." If discovery gets automated, the remaining frontier may be physical, actually going places no one has been, and that might pull those people toward space as it opens up.