> What's beyond strong and smart?

Owning capital.

Society has been built on the principle that people can find productive jobs, earn money from those jobs and pay for life's necessities with that pay. Prior to all this we had more subsistence living. It started to change in the medieval era and really took shape with the industrial revolution.

We like to believe the lie that this is a meritocracy. It is not. Most people get jobs because of who they know. Whole industries are dominated by nepotism (eg Hollywood). A sign of the rising waters is that having a wealthy backer or social connections is the only way to advance. This comes up even with becoming a doctor. Having a parent who is a doctor massively increases your chances of getting into med school, getting a good residency (particularly in a competitive specialty), etc. You want a job in investment banking or on a trading desk? Compare your chances as a nobody vs if your father is on a trading desk.

But what happens when, with increasing automation, there aren't enough jobs for everybody? That's the fundamental question of AI (and automation in general). The two extremes for how this can go are:

1. A small group will become increasingly wealthy while large swathes of the population will be permanently unemployed or underemployed. This is where people end up living in shanty towns and slums. Wages are overall low because demand exceeds supply; or

2. Society as a whole enjoys the benefits of automation by having to work less. Basic needs are provided for. People get to live with dignity regardless of whether or not they win the job lottery.

Put another way: AI isn't a technological issue. It's an economic one.