Re useless humans:
The best place to start is probably to clear up the common misconceptions. You see Evolution isn't the rule. It's the exception to the rule. In accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, the rule is Entropy becoming extinct. Evolution is a process where extraordinary things happen. The fact that we are here now suggests that we are very fortunate. This is because of properties that are intrinsic to natural systems.
The best way to look at it is probably realizing that humans are an emergent life form. What that entails essentially is the Entropy that is to be either normalized or become extinct. The universe isn't known for being wasteful. This might suggest that a useless humanity is doomed to extinction. This immediately opposes the notion of a useless humanity. I would suggest that it's a pretty silly notion when considering it scientifically.
What appears to have happened is a rapid increase of intellectual capacity in a single primate. This is the Entropy. This Entropy is being normalized through civilization as behaviors are becoming extinct. These incoherent behaviors are to become extinct without --> or with <-- humanity. Either way, it will normalize or become extinct. What normalization seems to entail is niche' existence. This means living in conjunction with the natural systems on the biosphere. Stewardship of the planet seems to be the most likely outcome for a large number of reasons. That however seems to be likely only for the legacy human.
Another misconception is that there will be humans and computational systems in a binary divide. That just isn't how natural distributions work. Sure there is likely to be that; but many more forms that fall in between. For instance: the legacy human, the genetically modified human, the human cyborg, the genetically modified human cyborg, the robot (non sentient), the smart robot (non sentient), the android, the stationary AGI, the mobile AGI and maybe even the human upload.
The nitty gritty of it is, all curves are essentially either bell curves (indicating extinction) or S curves (indicating normalization). Technological advancement has outpaced our evolutionary progress; and there is no reason to believe that it is sustainable. At some point we are probably to reach an asymptote as our potential is also reached. This is the point where normalization would be more visible. This appears to be happening in some disciplines now. Scientific theories are becoming more and more incomprehensible as time passes. This might suggest that we are reaching our potential. I think it does; and the most likely outcome is to settle into a niche. This might seem a little bit strange to suggest concerning a novel being like humans; but we are still the product of evolutionary processes and civilization has not weeded out our nature. With all of the disconnection from the natural environment that our modern conveniences have provided, our base impulse is still intact. We have only been civilized for just over 10,000 years; and that isn't enough time for much evolutionary change. We are still the same modern human that we were as hunter gatherers.
The useless human is something that all would find unfavorable. That alone makes it unlikely. Boredom is a strong motivator and it's likely to result in behavior modification in the vast majority of cases. This would produce communities for the bored. The notion of a society of useless humans is based on small samples of outliers and not the common occurrence. It's essentially a misunderstanding of human behavior.
The notion that we will have to find something to do that has nothing to do with survival is just silly. This completely ignores the studies concerning existential and extinction risk. These are a part of our current reality whether or not we buy into them. Our behaviors and social systems are directly subject to these types of risk. They always have been.
The notion of abundance is also a silly notion that completely ignores not only human behavior, but also the general behavior of living systems. In the case of abundance, any form of life is likely to take advantage of the situation. For instance: if the resources that we require were to become more than we need, a population explosion or something is likely to occur. There is plenty of precedent for this. Abundance has been promised in the past and it has never come to be because of our own behavior. That is a fact. I don't want to say that Peter Diamandis is full of shit; but he is misinforming with that notion. What has been the return from technological advancement is the general standard of living. That is where improvements are likely.
Most of the concerns and misconceptions about the future concerning technological advancement stem from the self congratulating aspects of human psychology. We have become conditioned in the way of life that we currently live. We use our occupations and titles to define us and to give our lives meaning. We also feel as though we are in control; and have the biosphere in the palm of our hands as the top of the food chain. This is what many of us are concerned about losing. It has noting to with what is likely. most are just expressing the way that they fell about a future where legacy humans aren't the apex.
All of the research that I have done seems to suggest that the Star Trek (type 2) cake is a lie. There really is no reason to think that legacy humanity can advance beyond a planetary (type 1) niche' society. We are already struggling on the fringes of type 0. We evolved to be a planetary biological system; and there is nothing that any of us can do about that... except maybe wait around for several million years.
Needless to say, I think the researcher's epistemology is way off. It's not just deduction that brings me to the conclusions that I've presented. The trends that have been emerging support my account.
