> The argument would be that repetitive, brainless thinking will no longer be required (not thinking in general), so people will be freed up for currently unimaginable cognitive pursuits.

That's a facile, superficial "argument" that is currently being made by everyone who is pro-AI when confronted with any claim of AI pushing humans out of the economy.

At this point in time, it's reasonable to dismiss the argument rather than engaging it, because each time this argument is made the proponent of the argument is completely mute on the fact that humans work to eat.

That's a big underlying counterargument, and no one making the argument is engaging with the counter-argument, they are instead setting up strawman counter-arguments.