Made me think 🙂 And I have a few minutes.

I'm going to argue with you based on taking this as a prediction, not as a work of fiction. I don't mean to criticize the work as such, but discuss it, so it wouldn't be terribly relevant to explain the lack of scope of the piece, I'm interested in the ideas.

I think you're quite right on the likeliest outcome for jobs - they will disappear for wet brains. It also seems reasonable that they would solve or at least optimise the solutions for many problems such as energy and health management.

However I would see psychology management come in too to divert the kind of creeping apathy you describe. Surely it is the next step of, if not intertwined with, medical health. Perhaps this might be manifested as it is today for a small minority of lucky people: pointless jobs.

Also I do not see the competition of intelligence being something that would very much be missed. I myself am nowhere near the smartest people and I do not begrudge these their sharpness, nor feel any inclination to compete with them. Perhaps those at the genius level would feel this sting but if AI gets to the super intelligence levels we predict for it I'm sure they could keep them busy on something. The point is that not being the smartest does not make me give up trying to do things.

I see trust as the larger issue, but I don't have time to go into it right now. Perhaps you do?

One last thing, you write an interesting non sequitur.

Everyone thought an end to the global conflicts was a good thing, no more war, no more government, no more hunger, famine and the environment quickly recovered. We did not realise the true value of questions until the questions ran dry, and we stopped progressing.

What are you saying here, that global conflict leads to questions being asked and progress that we cannot do without, that is fundamental to our survival? I do not see the link. The end of global conflict is a grand aspiration, and it's not clear here specifically what the price is.