Sam Altman's UBI experiment pretty much killed the concept. The people who received $1000/month for 3 years, ended with a lower net worth than those given $50/month.
Media pieces tried to spin it, but the actual study is pretty clear.
We've been through similar events. The printing press, the weaving loom.
When 95% of workers were farmers, the invention of the tractor was a devastating blow.
Back then, and I expect in future; it won't be about which jobs survive, it'll be about which new jobs are created.
I like to imagine the things I'd hire people to do if I had billions of dollars and AI was perfect.
Anything which saves me time would be up there. Imagine a team of me experts. People who've studied me for years to get a taste for my preferences. I send them all on holiday, all the time, to various places in the world. They report back with recommendations.
Then I only go to places I'm confident I'll like, but I still have the novelty of not having been there yet.
That sounds absurdly decadent, and it is; but to people hundreds of years ago our entire lives right now would look absurdly decadent.
There will still be jobs.
I wonder how many could be employed in such ways and how many just become slaves and playthings of the rich? Diddy did it. I really think it ends up dystopic when people don't have meaningful ways to spend their time. A lot of what people see as "meaningful" now might only be so because it is not done for money. However, if not needing money, does it still hold the same meaning?
Imagine how many people will be travelling to the places you might want to go.