Income is only part of the question
Work provides income, but also bargaining power, social standing, routine, and a way to contribute. These functions can separate. A person might receive financial support while losing influence over the institutions on which that support depends.
If advanced AI can perform a growing share of economically valuable tasks, employers may need fewer human contributions. New tasks could emerge, and the pace would vary across sectors. The deeper question is whether people retain something the economy must negotiate with them to obtain.
From assistance to substitution
Suppose an expert initially uses AI to serve more clients. Later, customers purchase the service directly from an automated provider. The expert's skill still has personal and social value, but earns less in that market. If this pattern spreads widely, retraining alone may become a less dependable response.
Who benefits depends on ownership, institutions, and distribution. Lower production costs do not automatically give everyone secure access to the resulting goods. Benefits could be broadly shared, concentrated among owners, or conditioned on compliance with whoever controls access.
Protect security and influence together
Possible responses include shared ownership, bargaining rights, reliable public provision, and limits on replacing people in roles where human participation matters. Each needs an explanation of who funds it, who governs it, and whether its guarantees can survive political change.
These measures address distribution and participation. They do not by themselves solve autonomous loss of control. Nor does displacement prove that people cannot find meaning outside paid work. The central concern is a future in which many people lose both economic necessity and the institutional power needed to secure their place.