I answered on Quora:

To answer this question holistically, I think we need step back and widen our perspective on the issue at-large.

I authored a blog in 2013 about creativity and the Singularity:

Information Is Alive!

I had elaborated writing under the pseudonym CornCube:

Dark Enlightenment

My thesis is that creativity doesn’t derive solely from processing power of any individual actor in the society. Rather creativity is a living process of (and manifestation of uncertainty in the) civilization as a holistic system. For example, our interactions with each other drive our creativity. But interaction without risk and uncertainty would not be a game.

Our relativity (i.e. that we don’t all approach the problem the way) and the free market, competitive system is what derives the plurality of experimentation which results in fitness. Our individual fallibility, imperfections, and willingness to take risk enables creativity. Remember entropy is a measure of the maximal distribution of uncertainty. Maximum uncertainty is a prerequisite of (or how I define) the state of being alive. We could not exist other than as a preordained scripted multiverse if universal disorder (aka entropy) wasn’t on an inexorable trend to maximization. Because otherwise thermodynamic processes could be reversible with the past and future (light cones of) spacetime collapsing into undifferentiated— i.e. everything that ever did and will exist would exist simultaneously in the multiverse. Even if it’s an illusion of chance and uncertainty, it’s a necessary illusion for without it, this wouldn’t be any fun devoid of any challenge nor unknowns.

Another interesting corollary is that order exists to foster more disorder, c.f. the bottom of the following linked post for discussion of an example:
Shelby’s ban from Bitcointalk

Thus the prerequisite for A.I. to replace humans belies its ability to do so. A.I. must integrate into society such that it’s driven by the motivations and interactions that drive humans, including the individual fallibility and imperfections which derive multivariate fitness. If so, then A.I. will not replace humans but rather integrate as competing individual actors along with humans. Until then, A.I. no matter how high its processing power, will only be tool which humans leverage.

So although professions will continue to change as technology advances, humans will not be replaced or enslaved by A.I. unless someone figures out how to make A.I. truly alive with the similar risks, imperfections, and failures of individual humans. And even if that invention or accident eventually transpires, then unless A.I. forms its own exclusive society from which we’re excluded as first-class actors sort of like how dogs are “excluded” from our human society, then A.I. just be another set of diverse actors added and absorbed into our society. Note we humans even value pets and love (i.e. the state of being appreciated) is integral with our existence and the multivariate fitness (i.e. our survival as a species) I’m writing about. What’s the chance that man is capable of spawning a new A.I. species that is more disordered (i.e. more diversified uncertainty) yet also so much higher in IQ that it’s incomprehensible yet superior to the human race?

To further support that last paragraph, I want to attempt a response to 155+ IQ Eric S. Raymond’s most recent blog wherein he contemplates whether society will split into a bimodal distribution demarcated roughly by 2 SD of IQ:

The return of the servant problem

So far I’m nonplussed on this issue. Meritocracy won’t cease in the maximum division-of-labor, Coasian Theory of the Firm busting Knowledge Age, because the access to information and markets are a level-playing field because of the Internet.

IMO, our highest priority is to continue to decentralize the Internet and disintermediate behemoths. Nearly all the databases on the Internet aren’t transparent nor uncontrolled decentralized, unlike the foundational protocols which are decentralized. The power to control enables and makes corruption inevitable:

“You can’t handle the truth!”

Western SJW idealism is enabling $trillions of corruption

I don’t think servants ever ceased especially if viewed from a worldwide lens. While the West was accumulating real and actuarial debt, the Third World was a captured market for slave labor. Now the privilege enjoyed by the West is coming to a close. The West was in debt slavery, while the East was in slave labor. Now the West and East will revert to the mean. The SJW westerners have been adopting communism while China long ago abandoned it.

Countries Vulnerable to Economic Devastation Soon

Bitcoin rises because land is becoming worthless

The IQ research indicates that above roughly 2 SD, the differentiation of abilities in IQ are overshadowed at least in terms of accomplishment (not raw intellect) in maximum division-of-labor expertise. 100 hours of week of grit + 2 SD is enough to compete effectively in the Knowledge Age. Fungible labor is dying with the agricultural and industrial ages:

Geographical Cultural Ethos → science is dead (Part 2)

Chattel slavery isn’t coming back no matter what the politics is, because it’s economically nonviable now. We didn’t end chattel slavery with ideology, rather technology disintermediated it. Economics (and all it entails such as fitness to entropic trend) trumps ideology. Scientists recently have discovered the entropic model of gravity. What value could anyone extract from chaining up another human, that wouldn’t have orders-of-magnitude relative opportunity cost. We have machines now which are orders-of-magnitude more efficient than deploying humans as mindless fungible laborers to perform some repetitive motions. This will only become more so as robots become smarter and less expensive, simultaneous with capital spreading out more uniformly in the world with the great re-balancing that is underway (of which Bitcoin and decentralized ledgers a major factor that most of you presumably do not realize yet). James A. Donald even posits that emancipating the slaves wasn’t the salient reason for the Civil War (others have also argued it was about subjugating States’ rights (c.f. also) and padding the Electoral College).

Jim wrote in Defining Restoration and Reaction:

the War of Northern Aggression a worse thing, the Puritans conquering those states whose state religion was different from their own to impose a single unified state religion, headquartered in Harvard, on all of the United States. The War of Northern Aggression was not fought to make slaves free, nor to impose tariffs on the South, but to erase the Episcopalianism of Charles the Second and to capture the schools and universities for Harvard

I’m very skeptical of the sole trait of IQ breaking away forming a bimodal distributed society. That’s negentropic so very unlikely. The 180 IQ Freeman Dyson in his famous rebuttal of Dawkins explained that mature species don’t drastically evolve by the Darwinian process:

RICHARD DAWKINS-FREEMAN DYSON: AN EXCHANGE

Darwinian evolution proceeds by the extinction of mature species and replacement by new species. Evolution of humans has shifted more into culture and technological exchange such as human control over designer genetics. AFAICT, genetics is more of a disordered soup of inseparable traits. It’s impossible to change just one thing, without causing unintended effects. This is necessary for if our control over our reproduction would become too ordered, then the human species would be negentropic and not be on trend to maximization of universal entropy and the fitness (resiliency, antifragility) of our species. If a subgroup such as the Ashkenazi Jews attempt to breakaway by engineering a rapid, exclusive (i.e. sociopathic) acceleration in IQ, they become laden with disorders. Slower assortative IQ targeting is diluted in the soup of all the mechanism by which nature can create disorder out of order. I don’t worry so much. Order exists to foster ever more disorder otherwise time and thermodynamic processes would be reversible and the past and future would be undifferentiated in a multiverse.

Humans are uniquely differentiated in so many facets that don’t all correlate to the g in IQ, e.g. genetic health, genetic metabolism, emotional awareness, entertainment, arts, dancing ability, personality, athletic ability, and physical diversity such as genital size, breast size, butt size, body shape, eye color, etc.. Already for example (and apologies if my poorly contemplated example offends anyone) we see the masses leveraging the Internet to market their unique features, e.g. tipping live (not necessarily pornographic) shows on WeChat in China, and extreme innovation of camgirl sites such as now the client can even control the performer’s sextoy remotely. Broadly humans have very diverse interests in terms of assigning value. Thus due to transitivity of and overlapping sets of valuations, while individuals may not value all such diverse traits, it seems implausible for them to groupwise breakaway from the holistic value of all the traits. Our mature species fitness is highly interconnected. We evolve together.

In one possible scenario for how disorder will spawn from the claim ordered superiority of high IQ segregation, IVF and assortative selection of embryos will enable the wealthy to hire the underclass to bear and rear babies for them from preferred donor genetics. The underclass can take this profit and create their own designer babies to lift up the IQ of “their” offspring. Perhaps a low IQ couple will alternate one of the parents being a donor for each offspring. That merges K and R strategies.

Opportunities will increase. Adversity breeds opportunity. This is the best of times and the worst of times. May we live in interesting times.

P.S. disclosure perhaps driving my perspective is my IQ is 2 SD based on SAT and ACT correlation. My pre-1995 SAT increased by 100 points on the second testing. I was drunk on the night before the first testing. Note my math scores are much higher than my verbal, except for my reading comprehension is as high as my math in percentile ranking. IOW, I struggle to articulate.

EDIT: see also my other answer:

Shelby Moore III's answer to Is it necessarily a given that artificial intelligence will surpass our own?