I saw that interview and the quote. As an engineer I know that machines wear out. AI can't do everything. It can create machines that could be capable of replicating most human skills, upto and including brain surgery. However, the part(s) of the system that move are subject to wear. There will be a need for workers to make the machines in the first place, to implement improvements as the design evolves and to manufacture replacements for when the origiinal machine wears out. So work cannot be totally eliminated.

There is also the economics of such things. How much energy and skilled work hours does it take to create the machine versus the energy and labour required to perform a given task? My guess is that many simple tasks will still be better performed by human beings, especially if those tasks require such ephemeral but important 'inputs' as empathy and emotional understading of, say, the sick and the old.

I'm in my 80s. Throughout my adult life there has existed this dream of eliminating 'work'. Strangely, in all that time, whilst there have been varying levels of unemployment, there has been a steady increase in the number of vacancies, matching increases in population. True, some of these 'jobs' are the kind of stupid activities you mention and I highlighted. The only way we will reduce the number of available jobs is by eliminating those that exist merely to encourage increased consumption of non-essentials, the basis of the kind of 'growth' that you and I both deplore.