they will likely be.. especially with technological singularity possibly being around the corner. that watson AI is now at least very close to matching human intelligence.
also, google has now made safe self-driving cars.. AI/robots are gaining some steam in the development department. btw, do you know how many taxi cab driver jobs would be eliminated if google drive offered a taxi service?
anyways, i'm not even talking about self-consciousness (in response to the for real part). i'm just talking about having AI actually connect 2 ideas together, and be able to perform tasks that humans could.
Watson is nowhere near reaching human intelligence; current AI methods are very far from that. So much so in fact, that only fairly recently has the search for a strong AI (real, human level AI) resumed after the initial hype. For the last few decades the field has mostly shifted to machine learning; that is, searching for solutions for the "simpler" problems like computer vision and so on. Now, it's true that a computer can currently store and organize a lot of information into categories and derive some meaningful information from it; but that is still very far from what a human can do.
As for the second part I emphasized, a lot of human tasks require far more than this. But you're right, a lot of jobs would be rendered obsolete if we decided to automate what we could tomorrow, even without a strong AI.
not to sound like a luddite, but it seems like we're starting to see a shift in the service industry, which is america's biggest labor pool. once things like that get automated, where will the jobs go? especially in the low skilled industries.
prior to that, jobs in factories and skilled labor were overtaken by improved technology. technology is not the same thing as AI. there's a difference in creating a car are much more cost-effective rates vs. firing all of your mcdonalds employees.
This is from my limited understanding of the situation:
Three decades ago, most of the American population was employed in jobs which required a lot of manual labor, such as coal mining and construction. But with the advancement of technology, the scope for such jobs have declined. Now most of the the population is employed in supermarkets (the biggest single provider of jobs in the US, if I am correct) and other service sector jobs. Requires less manual labor, is safer, and at the same time the average salaries are much higher.
You're right, most jobs nowadays are in the service sector, and depending on what metrics you use, they do provide better working conditions. But I believe you're wrong in assuming automation won't be disruptive to most people's livelihood.
I mean, let's take your example of the supermarket: I don't know where you live, but near me I have several supermarkets that have a few "self-service" check out counters; there is no reason why this can't eliminate everyone working at that station. Information areas? A couple of computers can do the trick for most things, and they can contact someone as a last resort (and probably remotely). A lot of the shelves can be redesigned to be filled in automatically; I believe I saw an article with an example some months ago (actually it might have been in a restaurant, I'm not sure). Supplying the goods to the supermarket itself could potentially be done with self-driving vehicles, with only a few people at the supermarket to offload stuff. What did I miss? Cleaning duties?
I'd say close to half of the workers could be laid off in a very short amount of time if we really pressed this.
Now, considering the amount of people that are currently employed in the service sector, and considering that many of the jobs could be automated tomorrow, how do you expect to easily retrain large amounts of people into new jobs? And even then, what do you expect them to do? Post in a forum for a living? Humans can adapt only so quickly. And not everyone is going to be able to start a new company; in fact, most of the jobs that could be easily replaced don't pay a lot to begin with, so we're talking about people that probably already live day to day with less than comfortable disposable income.