Predicting the future these days has become an absolute must-have among experts. When technology is changing the world so rapidly, one really wants to look at least a few years into the future. The goals are different. Consumers - to fantasize, admire and / or be horrified, businesses - to adjust plans, politicians - to consider measures to maintain calm in society in case of a "big technological nix".

For example, here are a few numbers from a December 2017 McKinsey Global Institute study:

Such figures - some more, some less - are found in many sources. And if a person makes a presentation on this topic, then where without predictions?
By profession, I often attend events on neural networks, machine learning and big data. It is these areas of development that make robots beat us at chess and go, retouch photos and videos so that we do not see the difference from the real thing, help cars move without a driver.
Of course, everyone at such events also says that artificial intelligence will replace some professions.

Of the obvious:

And this is where the fantasy begins. The main ideas are two.
Some say that they will introduce some kind of social tax on the robot: if a company suddenly changes a living person for a car, then it will have to finance it.

Others are sure that people, having freed themselves from the shackles of routine, will either relearn and leave for other professions, or remain in the same areas, but will take up more complex and highly intellectual tasks. There is even such a fantasy that a significant part will go to programmers (some of whom, by the way, will also be automatized).

The catch is that the current technological breakthrough happened in just 15-20 years. People argue that robots can only replace a certain limited set of skills. But I think this set is much larger than what we currently assume. And it will keep expanding.

What makes it possible? Basically, neural networks that learn by competing, and are able to analyze large amounts of information almost instantly, to instantly go through decision-making branches.

There are already self-driving robotic vehicles. And if not even self-driving, then stuffed with thousands of sensors, which, when programmed correctly, allow the car to do self-diagnosis on the go. So that the future robot-repairman knows where to "heal". There are robots that assemble cars and robots that control car assemblers. Many working and even intermediate professions will sooner or later be replaced.

Take a lawyer or a diagnostician. For both of them, you can pretty clearly write the tree "if - then". It is clear that this applies to cases where communication with the patient is not required, where you can look at a couple of codes and precedents to understand how to proceed. Or, for example, the accountant. For the most part, they look for data, combine it, check it in one-another-third place. There are already programs that solve basic accounting problems. They are not smart yet and so far only help people. But soon they will "get on".

If you think about it, the majority of people on Earth are engaged in not very highly intellectual work. Yes, complex, but not requiring megacreativity. Key point: it's repetitive stuff. Which means it's automated.

Then we can assume that one day only extremely intelligent professions will remain on the planet. For example, scientists, inventors, super-cool doctors, and lawyers. As a percentage of the total, they are not so many. Everyone else can be replaced.
By the way, there are ideas that the latter will be replaced by purely humanistic professions such as psychotherapists - those who should listen to a person's emotional background and help. It seems to me that it is not very difficult to replace a psychotherapist. But the point is different: it is important for a person that on the part of the specialist there is a living person

Firstly, a lot will depend on how the retraining system is built. If now the future expert is learning from simple to complex, then how will he become a professional if he skips the basic steps?

Secondly, I'm sure those who say that people will adjust and do something advanced are wrong. Too many people have to adapt. Plus, not everyone is able to retrain from simple to complex work. Rather, they will jump from a simple job to a simple one, where the robots have not yet reached (but they will get there - not in this generation, but in the next). And sooner or later this race will come to an end. Thus, a layer of people will appear who have nothing to do and they will not bring benefits.

It turns out that the trend with robots in the limit looks like this: there are robots and there are people controlling them. There is power. There are a small number of people, without which it is impossible. And robot owners who once invested in technology.

Here, a question arises at a certain power elite: why feed all the "optimized"? Not in the sense of social responsibility or humanitarian expediency, but in a purely economic sense - how to implement this?

It turns out that the few who remain to work and create should have enough responsibility to support all the others. There will be a lot of these others, but at the same time nobody will need them. And for them, the meaning of existence is being blurred.

If we do not want this future to come, we need to think now what to do about it.

Perhaps I do not notice certain economic factors, maybe for some kind of work a person will always be cheaper than a robot.

Some countries now regulate the employment of migrants. They are cheaper to pay than residents, but there is a law that does not allow migrants to hire more than a certain amount. Perhaps they will make a similar story with robots - even if the robot does the job cheaper and better.

Here the question of the value of a person lights up. Now, given that the planet is a global market, it is easy to define. For example, he performs useful work. What if this is not needed? What value will secure its right to existence? How will he be able to harmonize with the world that is being formed?

It may be necessary to give evolution some time. So that we ourselves align our needs and go to another level, where everyone will have something to do without repetitive tasks. But I don't think we'll get there painlessly.

I hope that the situation described "in the limit" does not come. Because then the population will be reduced to a minimum. But it will definitely not be the way they are now saying at conferences, that people will simply constantly relearn. After all, one day there will be no place to retrain.