> and spend more time on the parts of the job that actually matter i.e. framing problems, making tradeoffs, spotting risks, creating clarity, and producing original insight.
What makes you think AI won't do those parts of the job? Either AI stops improving, or it will replace thinking.
It can already do some part of that. Eventually it will be able to all of it.
If it does it on it's own, it might be a good idea, but it won't be your good idea. This is not an issue of ownership or attribution, but one of content. Your ideas come from your experiences. An AI may eventually be able to make any tool fit for the task you had in mind. It can't on it's own, give you the tool that you want because you just thought of it.
AI may one day spray the world with new ideas, That won't stop humans from having ideas themselves. Like chess programs, being better than any human can make you choose to give up chess, or it might help you become a better chess player. You won't become better than the chess program, but you also probably won't become better than the best human chess players. Nobody should stop doing something because someone or something can do it better.
Chess is boring; it's been solved. I'm not really looking forward to a future where the only thing I get to do is play with toys while waiting for the AI to refill the cat food bowl.
I genuinely find chess pretty uninteresting. I kill some time with it occasionally, I guess, but like gaming in general, I could never get into it, not when there are puzzles with unknown answers out there.
What makes you think it will? Your dichotomy is a false one.
We don't even know what 'thinking' is so the idea that it'll create it just by scaling does not follow. What is much more likely is that we're on the wrong path. That's been the case for more than half a century.
What makes you think AI won't do those parts of the job? Either AI stops improving, or it will replace thinking.