I have been thinking lately about a post-AGI world and I have a couple of thoughts. For a moment, let’s ignore whether AGI is possible and the definitions of super intelligence - AGI, ASI.
For the purpose of this article, I’m referring to a scenario where a computer/machine can do everything a human can do and we all have access to it.
My view is that knowing how to use the computer/machine will still matter and this will be dependent on:
- Your knowledge
- Your ability to learn
- Access to resources
If you think about it this way then we can already see this in cooking. People can cook but still go to restaurants, why?
- You go to these restaurants because of the chefs taste. The taste and originality. A signature dish isn’t just a recipe; it’s a point of view.
- High-end restaurants have access to some specialty ingredients and supply chains that might not be easy to attain.
- You don’t want to cook, let some else do it.
- You have to learn how to cook a lot of meals and you don’t know how to prepare them like the chef (and are not willing to learn). You’d have to invest time to become really good.
- You don’t have the skill required to make the meal.
Cooking is a clean analogy
Drawing from this analogy, I believe that humans will still have jobs post AGI, what those jobs will be I have no idea. “I won’t need people” is true up to a point. So yes: many people will feel like they “don’t need people” for a lot of tasks.
- The “chef tier” remains in demand: people who combine the machine with taste, judgment, and accountability. People who learn how to use AGI will excel post-AGI. Maybe still computer scientists?
- Some low-end outsourcing still exists, mainly for convenience and low-risk tasks.
- People with access to the resources like energy will get better results (just don’t be in Nigeria, we don’t have enough electricity for the internet!). Access to scarce resources energy, compute, capital, distribution etc becomes a massive advantage.
- A lot of routine work shrinks, because people can self-serve outcomes.
If everyone can do it, does it stop being valuable? If cameras are everywhere, does photography die? If everyone can publish, does writing become worthless? If everyone can cook, do chefs become obsolete?
Abundance isn’t evenly distributed by default
When people say “we’ll all have access,” it’s easy to picture a fair playing field. But access comes in layers.
- Logical access: the tool exists, and you’re allowed to use it.
- Practical access: you can use it consistently and well—electricity, internet, devices, time, money, language support, compute limits, and the social environment around you.
Abundance isn’t evenly distributed by default. Tools don’t automatically create fairness. They create potential.
If you live somewhere with unstable infrastructure, “available” becomes a joke. You can’t build a future on a tool that only works when the power stays on.
This is where I have to be real: just don’t be in Nigeria if the game becomes “who can reliably run the machine.” We still don’t have enough dependable electricity every day, in every place. In a post-AGI world, that kind of gap doesn’t disappear.
Cooking again is instructive. A smart recipe assistant doesn’t help much if you:
- Don’t have access to ingredients,
- Lack a reliable kitchen,
- Work two jobs and have no time,
- Don’t have safe storage,
- Live where energy costs are volatile.
So the real “abundance story” isn’t just about AI capabilities. It’s about distribution: access, interfaces, education, trust, and integration with real-world constraints.
Start learning to get ahead. Not just learning prompts.
Learn how to:
- Define problems clearly,
- Develop taste (what good looks like),
- Verify and audit outputs,
- Build systems that turn machine output into real-world results,
- Understand a domain deeply enough to know when the machine is confidently wrong,
- And keep learning!