I don't suppose there will be a single job that couldn't be done by a robot. But I can imagine several that couldn't be done by a robot as well as a real live human being.
In fact, all jobs which include a substantial element of interaction with another human being: counsellors, teachers, therapists, hairdressers, in fact all of the service industry.
Then there's all the artistic professions: fine artists, actors, singers, musicians, interior designers etc.
And of course all the company managers, advertising agencies, financial advisers, etc.
How about the people who'll design, build and maintain this workforce of robots?
How about all the industries that have yet to be invented? Who could have foreseen the role of the software engineer in C17th?
Who's to say that computers can't eventually be capable of effectively socializing, identifying and interpreting emotions, and reacting to them in socially accepted ways? It's complicated as hell, yeah, but computers have only been getting better, and they will probably continue to do so at accelerating rates.
Consider this: How many people would rather have a machine that cuts their hair rapidly and precisely for a fifth of the cost of a human barber? If someone can invent such a thing, barbers will be out of a job. And why can't such a machine be invented within the next century?
What if computing power eventually advances to the point that computers can create works of art and aesthetics indistinguishable from those made by humans? Sure, some people might want what they think is the human touch, but if AIs are just as good at it and the buyers are only shown the finished product, how would they know the difference? In fact,
computers can already compose music.
As for constructing robots, assembly lines for advanced machines are already mostly or entirely automated; we've moved past the era of craftsmen. Robots could be designed to repair other robots. An advanced enough AI could eventually design other machines and AIs.
In fact, they are already doing so. As he says in the talk, machines are getting so complicated that humans can't understand them and so we can only create them at all by having machines design them.
The writing is on the wall. Humans aren't going to be creating things for much longer besides waste and other humans. Sure, there will probably be niche industries for human-designed things for those who appreciate them, just as some people today appreciate things made by hand. And some people will favor services performed by other humans for that human touch, and to support society and their fellow man. But most people will go for the cheapest, most efficient option, which has long been the one performed by a machine that doesn't get paid, has no family to support, no benefits to collect, and which can't look for work elsewhere or unionize, all the while doing the work more quickly and precisely. Look at what looms did to the Indian weaving industry in the 18th century. Sure, people operated those looms, but they didn't have the lifetime of skill possessed by master weavers who did their work by hand. Eventually, the loom operators were generally obsolete, too.
What people forget is that everything is done to benefit people. Too much automation would cause widespread unemployment, with fewer jobs and billions more people who need them. Improved transportation and communication technologies mean that the potential pool of competitors for a given job is much larger now. In the distant past, people had to live near where they worked to be able to go there, work for hours, and go home within a day. Nowadays, electronic communication and rapid transit mean that workers could come from dozens of miles away if they commute, or from anywhere on earth if they work over the Internet or phone. This combination of a huge population, fewer available human jobs, and easy commuting means that there's more ferocious competition for jobs than ever before, as can easily be seen by the way employers discard employees like used diapers.
This isn't to take a totally Luddite perspective and declare all progress to be evil. It's quite nice that I can conceivably have enough money to travel anywhere in the world. Two centuries ago, only the rich could afford to vacation like that (as opposed to the largely non-recreational voyages of sailors). Improved medical and sanitation technology is quite possibly the best thing
ever, since it has really reduced the percentages of people who die prematurely of disease. And obviously, I don't object to the development of computers overmuch. But there can be too much of a good thing, and if machines and AI can do anything we can do better, faster, and cheaper, we'll have destroyed our own livelihoods.
Maybe some kind of post-scarcity economy would be good. I could live my whole life without holding a job and I'd be happy because I'd have all the time in the world to do what I wanted (though if, say, there were no more ecologically healthy, large wilderness areas, and no room for horses, I'd see no point in living at all). But a lot of people need something to drive them, give them reason to wake up and live. If they were all out of jobs, I'd expect that the complete lack of a sense of purpose in their lives would cause quite a few social and psychological problems.
