So, GPT 5.3 came out, Opus 4.6 came out.

It's really clear AI is getting to

Terminator 2 levels of competence. And

naturally, the question on everybody's

minds is, when's McDonald's releasing

that Szechuan sauce again? No, it's

obviously, what the am I going to

do with my life if AI models are better

than me at basically anything that I

could possibly choose as a career? Well,

that's what this video is for. My goal

is to give you guys a list of different

things that you can do that are likely

to be insulated against the AI takeover

in the next few years. Your first option

is getting really good at something that

interfaces with the real world. And I'll

run you guys through some examples in a

second. But have you ever wondered why

AI models are getting really good at

writing and art and media and

programming, but then they're lagging

behind on the more monotonous, boring

things like scrubbing my toilet or

taking out my trash?

I wish they could do those things, but

the reality is, there's way more

training data available for our

26-character English alphabet than there

is sensor and actuator and pressure and

heat data available on something that, I

don't know, happens all the time. Like,

let's say you're going into a clinic and

getting your blood collected. Like, if

you think about it, we have billions or

trillions of words of written text

available on the internet because that

was what the internet was made for. It

was made to communicate primarily

through a textual medium. Whereas, how

much data do we really have on some

advanced robotic prosthesis feeding a

needle into an arm? So, there's a couple

things there, right? If you're in

writing or design or media, there's

still some options available for you,

which I'll cover in a moment. But But if

you're approaching your career at sort

of the start line with no pre-existing

skill set, it makes more sense as this

upcoming economic transition is

occurring to learn a skill that does

interface with the physical world that

has some sort of actual real-world

presence. Most digital white-collar work

is automatable fairly quickly. I mean,

in the next 6 to 12 months, Dario

Amodei, he's the founder of Anthropic,

which is the group of people that

designed the Claude series of models.

Um, he thinks that we're going to

automate the vast majority of all

software engineering. And I mean, like,

software engineering underscores a

massive chunk of most people's daily

lives at this point, but it's not all of

our lives. I mean, you exist in the

physical world, you don't exist in the

digital one. So, what do you do with

your life when you step away from the

computer? The various services, pieces

of infrastructure, and organizations

that manage the experiences you have

outside of your computer are quite

important and likely to have a fair

amount of runway yet. And there are

other implications to this, as well.

Consider uh nursing, for instance. If

you guys are a nurse, you're typically

dealing with um at-risk populations.

You're typically dealing with people

that, you know, might be a little bit

frailer. Consider uh working in a

nursing home or some sort of long-term

care facility or even at the hospital.

And so, in addition to there being, you

know, a direct lack of data in this

field, there are also a fair amount of

regulatory concerns and also safety

concerns uh about automating work that

deals with people like this. Not to

mention just the desire for comfort. You

know, would you rather get treated or

dealt with by some cold robotic machine

or, you know, a nice, smiling, warm,

friendly nurse? I would obviously choose

the latter, at least at this point in

time. And so, in addition to not having

the data existing and having to collect

all of that data, which is likely a

process that would take, you know, 3 to

5 to maybe 10 years, we also have to

have those alternatives, these automated

solutions, approved by regulatory bodies

because we're dealing with people that

are more at risk, you know, frailer and

and so on and so forth. And it's not

just health, either. I don't just want

to make everybody think I'm saying, "Get

into nursing." Um you know, dealing with

real-world physical things extends far

beyond that. What about the handyman

that needs to service a building, some

sort of maintenance technician? Think

about the diverse set of general skills

required by like an electrician who

comes in to both, you know, wire your

home, but who also needs to understand a

fair amount of basic carpentry. And not

only that, they have to be able to

maneuver and navigate environments that

may not necessarily be set up for some

sort of robotic apparatus. In general,

the real-world roles with the most

runway are likely to be the one that

does not have the most specialized skill

set, but counterintuitively, actually

the the more shallow and broader skill

set. So, things like general-purpose

handymen or maintenance technicians or

automotive technicians, to be honest.

People like electricians, like I was

talking about. You know, construction

workers, things like that. Which is

hilarious to me just because a few years

ago the number one piece of advice to

people that wanted to make more money

was always like learn to program

computers.

Now, there's going to be like

construction workers at the site

watching a poor little programmer

stumble on by, and they're going to say,

"Pick up a hammer, little bro." The

second way is to help people and

businesses implement AI models. If you

guys think about it, with models getting

more intelligent, less costly, and more

capable in every way, shape, and form,

you know, this future extension of our

models today are soon to become

essentially the highest economic good.

So, if you guys can help people and

businesses, and specifically

organizations that are high leverage

like NGOs, I don't know, really powerful

charities, or even government

organizations, if you guys can help them

implement AI systems, you can get a

share of that massive unbanded potential

upside. Alternatively, you can also help

raise awareness about the direction that

this technology is going for people that

might not have as much of a background

or might not be as acquainted by it. You

can help people prepare for a future

that, you know, might look very

differently, at least economically

speaking, than our current one, similar

to what I'm doing today. You could

create video content all about how to

implement systems in businesses where

you see opportunities to build things

that bridge gaps. You could help people

transition from roles that are maybe

heavily people-based into ones that do

interface more with robotic process

automation. You could learn how to

prompt these AI models in more efficient

ways, and then to share those prompts

with other people. These are all things

that are going to be very, very

valuable. Although I should note, these

are going to be valuable for a much

shorter period of time than something

like uh real world jobs that interface

with the physical world and have

presence. I would think two to four

years of major runway as opposed to the

previous idea of, you know, five, 10 to

15 before the proliferation of robotics.

And this is a major chunk of my own

content. I'm thinking about various ways

that I can help accelerate the

transition into a more efficient

economy. One is both the awareness of

opportunities available. Another is the

awareness of various windows that are

closing that I think people should take

advantage of. Uh the third is helping

people build and then implement systems

that are driven by large language

models, AI models, automated platforms,

and so on and so forth into their

businesses and and high-leverage

organizations. And then another is

building an audience of people that I

can effectively be a good consensus

mechanism to um as the pace of change

continues to increase. The third thing

you can do to carve out a chunk of the

future is building a brand around

positive human qualities that might not

necessarily be directly related to our

economic productivity.

One of the most interesting phenomena

for me over the last 20 years has been

the advent of uh video game streamers.

If you think about it, video game

streaming has like a near zero economic

value. Like what is a video game

streamer producing for the world? Are

they making our roads better? Probably

not, you know, it's a consumptive media.

You're watching somebody play video

games and they usually comment on it,

but it's not the commenting that is

really constructing our damn buildings

or improving our GDP. So the value of

video game streaming is divorced from

the economic productivity of it. In

addition, video game streaming is also

really interesting situation where

models and AI and tools and systems have

actually already been better than human

beings for quite a long period of time.

And despite that, it's still thriving.

The reason why is because the value that

it provides is not like an economic

good. The value that it provides to

human beings, it's a sense of

connectedness. It's a sense of

community. You guys ever seen like video

game streaming chats blow up when the

fella or chick does something funny in

the game, it's insane. You feel like

you're surrounded by thousands of other

people. And if you combine that with the

fact that, you know, software has

already been better than us at a variety

of these games, but people still choose

to watch human beings play them, I think

you might be moving towards a realistic

vision of what future careers actually

look like. Like, check out on Magnus

Carlsen. Magnus Carlsen is the best or

one of the best chess players on planet

Earth. But robots have been better than

human beings at chess for, I mean, I I

think at least a decade now, probably

significantly more. So, what that means

is people don't watch Magnus Carlsen

because he's the best at what he does.

People watch Magnus Carlsen and he's

developed this fanatical audience

because

instead of providing the most economic

value and objectively being the best at

something,

what he does is he extols human

qualities and virtues, while not

directly related to the economy, we find

very admirable. For instance, he's

funny. He has a sense of humor. He is

courageous. He's brave. He acts quickly

and decisively. Sometimes he's daring.

He possesses courage. These are

qualities that human beings respect and

naturally understand in the people

around them. We really like these

things. And while historically they've

been related to one's ability to produce

economic value, they're not the end-all

be-all. Clearly, situations like video

game streaming with Magnus Carlsen and,

you know, millions of other people that

do this thing, show us that it does not

necessarily our ability to make money or

whatever that is the most important

thing to people. The most important

thing to people at the end of the day

are just these human qualities which

have been hardwired and genetically

encoded in us to be admirable. So, if

you can get really good at these

qualities, and then if you can

illustrate them and demonstrate them in

a medium that has very high leverage,

something like video game streaming or

potentially some other media, you know,

I personally think you've a very long

and very healthy runway ahead. And I

even think that that might be an example

of what our future economy might look

like. You know, instead of us dealing in

dollars and cents, since AI models are

going to be better at us than both

producing these things, planning these

things, building infrastructure to

improve GDP and and build roads and

whatnot. Um you know, I think a

potential future for an economic system

might be some sort of credit-based thing

where we extol positive human virtues

and then get paid as a result of that.

The last point I'll make on this is and

this isn't directly related to what I

was just talking about, is I just want

you guys to think economically about

supply and demand. Over the course of

the next 5, 10, or maybe 15 years, we're

going to see trillions of agents, maybe

quadrillions of agents. And each of

these agents will be as economically

productive as you or I. And so, in the

future where you now have a quadrillion

agents, and then you have just a few

billion human beings, which is the

scarce resource economically speaking?

Obviously, it is the human beings,

right? And so, what is essentially human

about that scarce resource that you can

extract and that you can use to sort of

predict where the future of an economy

looks like. Anyway, I hope you guys

enjoyed that video. If you guys want

help implementing and rolling out AI

systems to high-leverage organizations

like I was talking about there, check

the description, consider joining Maker

School. It's my daily accountability

program where I show people how

essentially to build these sorts of

systems for businesses and other

organizations, and then improve both

your leverage and then accelerate the

transition to a more efficient economy.

Always a pleasure, looking forward to

chatting with all y'all tomorrow. See

you.