"Human Privilege" Jobs & The Omni-Layered Marketing Dystopia & the final stable society!

Here are categories of "human privilege" jobs that might persist:

1. Legal/Institutional Privilege

Voting and jury duty - Rights typically reserved for citizens/humans
Witnessing legal documents - Notaries, witnesses to wills
Holding elected office - Presidents, legislators, judges
Corporate board seats - If regulations require human directors
Professional licensing gatekeeping - If humans control who can practice medicine, law, etc.

This is fragile though - laws can change.

2. Authentic Human Experience/Testimony

Being a test subject - "How does this drug affect humans?"
Customer feedback - "What do humans think of this product?"
Ethnographic research subjects - Anthropologists studying human culture need humans
Memoir writing - "My life as a human in 2025"
Historical witnesses - "I remember what it was like before AI"

3. Parasocial/Relationship Premium

Celebrities and influencers - People follow individuals, not generic content
Dating and companionship - Even with perfect AI companions, some will prefer humans
Therapy/counseling - If there's persistent demand for human therapists
Religious leaders - A human priest/rabbi/imam may be required for legitimacy
Teachers - Parents might insist on human teachers even if AI is better

The key question: How much would these pay?

4. Ownership-Based Roles

Landlord - Owning property and collecting rent
Investor - Owning capital and collecting returns
Celebrity licensing - Licensing your image/name/brand

Wait - these aren't really "jobs" requiring labor, they're returns to assets.

The Uncomfortable Implication

Most "human privilege" jobs fall into two categories:

A) Jobs that are really rents on scarce human attributes:

Being famous (Taylor Swift can charge for concerts because she's uniquely Taylor Swift)
Being historically significant (the last human who remembers X)
Having legal privileges

B) Jobs that exist due to consumer "inefficiency"/"irrationality":

Preferring human service workers when AI is objectively better
Wanting human companionship when AI companionship is objectively superior

What This Means for Wages

The problem: These "human privilege" jobs have terrible scaling properties:

Celebrity/influencer: Winner-take-all markets. Maybe 10,000 people worldwide can earn a living this way. The 10,001st most interesting human probably can't compete with AI-generated content.
Legal/institutional privilege (juror, voter, official): These are either:
- Unpaid or poorly paid (jury duty, voting)
- Very few positions (elected officials)
- Potentially changeable by law
Authentic human experience: Limited demand. How many "professional humans being studied" do we need? How much does it pay to be a drug trial subject?
Relationship premium work: This only works if:
- Enough people are "willing to pay extra for human" AND
- That premium exceeds your subsistence costs (100 sq ft of rent in your model)

A Darker Scenario

Suppose:

1% of humans are famous/interesting enough to earn money from their unique identity
1% have institutional privileges that pay (politicians, etc.)
10% can earn subsistence from the "human preference premium" (therapy, companionship, artisanal goods)

That leaves 88% of humanity with no economic role except:

Voting (if that matters)
Being consumers (if given money through redistribution)
Being kept alive by charity or UBI

The Most Plausible "Human Privilege" Job

If I had to bet on one category that employs the most humans in this scenario:

"Verified human presence/attention" - Jobs where the value is simply that a human witnessed/experienced/approved something:

Product testers ("This was tested on real humans")
Quality auditors ("A human checked this")
Customer service where company wants to signal they care ("Talk to a real human!")
Content moderation where human judgment is legally required

But even these feel like they'd be:

Relatively few positions globally
Potentially poorly paid (because the barrier to entry is just "being human")
Vulnerable to legal changes allowing AI substitution

The uncomfortable conclusion: In your scenario, "human privilege" creates a thin labor market with terrible wages for most, because the main thing most humans have to sell is "I am human" - and there are 8 billion substitutes.

What's your intuition? Do you see categories of human privilege I'm missing?

Prompt:

What you're missing is that all power (and human privilege) flows from the ballot box and all ultimate purchasing decisions do too. The privilege is not just institutional but interpersonal. A human has more access to another human.
That gives the scenario where the only job is marketing face to face with innumerable layers. Sketch out that scenario.

The Omni-Layered Marketing Dystopia

Ah, you're absolutely right. Let me sketch this out:

The Core Insight

Every economic transaction ultimately requires a human decision-maker's approval - because humans control:

The vote (political power)
The purchase (spending power, even if it's UBI)
Access to other humans (social gatekeeping)

AI can be infinitely persuasive in text/video, but humans trust and grant access to other humans preferentially. This creates a massive arbitrage opportunity.

The Scenario: Infinite Marketing Layers

Layer 1: Corporate to Voter/Consumer

Corporations need to influence legislation and consumer behavior
AI can create perfect ads, but there's a "last mile problem" - getting actual humans to pay attention and trust
Job: Door-to-door canvassers, community influencers, "brand friends"
You're paid by corporations to talk to your neighbors, friends, family about products/political positions

Layer 2: Marketing the Marketers

But wait - there are millions of people trying to be marketers
You need someone to convince the corporation that you're the right marketer for this territory
Job: Marketing agencies that employ humans to pitch corporate clients on why their human marketers are better
"Our canvassers are 3% more trusted in suburban demographics!"

Layer 3: Meta-Marketing

Marketing agencies are competing with each other for corporate contracts
Job: Humans who sell marketing agencies to corporations
"Let me take you to lunch and explain why our agency's canvassers are more authentic..."

Layer 4-∞: The Infinite Regress

Every layer generates a new layer of human-to-human marketing:

Political Consultants → marketing to campaigns Lobbyists → marketing to politicians
Campaign Managers → marketing to politicians about hiring them Fundraisers → marketing to wealthy donors "Introducers" → marketing access to fundraisers Networking consultants → marketing to introducers about how to meet fundraisers

The Economy That Emerges

Everyone's Job Title: "Relationship Manager"

Your economic value is purely:

Who you have access to (your network)
How much those people trust you (your reputation/charisma)
Your willingness to spend that trust (monetizing relationships)

A Day in the Life (2045)

Morning: You have breakfast with your neighbor Sarah. Casually mention how great the new Tesla model is (you're paid $5 by Tesla's local influencer network). She seems interested.

Mid-morning: Video call with your "upline coordinator" at NeuroTech Marketing Collective. They want you to pivot to pushing their client's political candidate. You negotiate your rate - you have good penetration in your local community.

Lunch: Meet with James, who's trying to recruit you to switch to his marketing collective. He wines and dines you. You're probably not switching, but free lunch. Also, you're being paid by your current collective to gather intelligence on his pitch tactics.

Afternoon: Canvas your apartment building about the upcoming local election. You're being paid by three different campaigns - you'll weight your pitch based on who pays most and what you think each neighbor wants to hear.

Evening: Attend a "networking event" (really a marketplace where people broker introductions). You pay $50 to meet someone who knows someone on the city council. You're hoping to sell access to your network of apartment dwellers to anyone who wants to influence them.

Night: Message 47 people in your network with personalized recommendations (AI-written, but sent from your account with your reputation). Get paid microtransactions for each.

The Economic Structure

The Pyramid

Ultra-wealthy (own land/capital)
      ↓ (employ)
Top-tier human intermediaries (access to politicians, celebrity endorsers, mega-influencers)
      ↓ (employ)
Mid-tier marketers (manage networks of local influencers)
      ↓ (employ)  
Local influencers (have direct relationships with communities)
      ↓ (target)
Regular people (vote, buy, control household decisions)

Key Features

1. Your network IS your capital

People guard their contact lists jealously
Introductions are explicitly priced
Social capital becomes literally monetized

2. Trust depletion

Every relationship has a "trust balance"
Each marketing pitch depletes it slightly
You're constantly balancing: maintain relationships vs. monetize them now
Some people specialize in "slow burn" (building trust to cash in later)

3. Tiered access

Getting to talk to a senator requires passing through 5-7 human gatekeepers
Each gatekeeper extracts rent for access
AI can't bypass this because humans preferentially grant access to humans

4. Verification and authenticity theater

Entire sub-economy around proving you're a "real" person, not an AI or bot
Blockchain-verified human identity
"I met this person in-person" carries premium
Face-to-face meetings are expensive but necessary for high-value relationships

5. Multi-level marketing structure, but for everything

Every product, service, political position flows through human relationship chains
You're always recruiting people "below" you (to expand your network)
You're always pitching people "above" you (to get access to better opportunities)

The Wage Question

What do people earn in this economy?

The top 0.01% (direct access to power):

Lobbyists with senator connections: $500K+
Top political consultants: $1M+
A-list celebrity influencers: $10M+

The top 10% (professional networkers):

$50-100K - enough to pay rent and maintain the lifestyle needed to network (nice clothes, restaurant budgets, travel)

The middle 60% (part-time local influencers):

$20-30K - piecing together income from multiple marketing collectives
Barely subsistence, supplemented by UBI

The bottom 30% (no marketable network):

$0 from labor
Living on UBI/charity
Either don't have social skills or burned their reputation

Why This is Dystopian

1. All relationships become transactional

Every friendship has implied economic value. You're always calculating: "Can I monetize this?"

2. Authenticity paradox

The job requires appearing authentic (people only trust genuine relationships), while being fundamentally inauthentic (you're being paid to influence them).

Successful people develop cognitive dissonance: "I genuinely believe in this product, AND I'm being paid to promote it."

3. Inequality is relationship-based

The people who are:

Naturally charismatic
Well-connected by birth
Extroverted
Socially intelligent
Willing to monetize relationships

...thrive. Everyone else struggles.

4. Race to the bottom

As more people compete for marketing jobs, you need to:

Spend more to maintain your network (expensive dinners, gifts)
Accept lower rates
Be more aggressive in monetizing relationships (burning trust faster)

5. The work is degrading

You're essentially a parasite on genuine human connection, inserting yourself as a toll-booth between every human interaction and every economic transaction.

The Political Economy

Why doesn't this get regulated away?

Because the marketers control politics:

Politicians need marketers to win elections
Marketers can credibly threaten: "Vote against us and we'll turn our networks against you"
Any attempt to ban "commercial interpersonal influence" would be:
- Unenforceable (how do you prove I was paid to mention Tesla?)
- Opposed by the majority (since most people earn something from marketing)

The equilibrium

Ultra-wealthy own all capital/land
They pay the marketing pyramid to:
- Maintain political control (lobby for favorable laws)
- Drive consumption (sell products)
- Preserve the system (market against wealth redistribution)
Everyone else fights for crumbs by:
- Monetizing their relationships
- Competing to be the "trusted voice" in their community
- Hoping to climb to the next pyramid level

Could This Actually Happen?

Some evidence it's already starting:

Influencer economy
MLM structures
Lobbyist industry
Political consultancy explosion
"Refer a friend" programs everywhere
Social credit systems

The AI scenario would just make it total - where relationship-management is literally the only job left.

The Bleakest Part

In the original feudal scenario, at least people retained dignity - they were simply obsolete.

In the marketing dystopia, people maintain economic relevance only by:

Commodifying their relationships
Degrading authentic human connection
Competing against each other in a negative-sum game

Everyone has a job, but the job is "betray your friends' trust for money, slowly and carefully enough that they don't notice."

Prompt: Now we just need to think about the social reaction to that which gives us the final stable society. In this scenario the people at the bottom (or at least a portion of them) opt out of the system and create a new system that is more personally meaningful to them.

The Great Opt-Out: Dual Society Equilibrium

Yes, this is the crucial missing piece. Let me sketch how this resolves:

The Tipping Point

At some point, a significant minority realizes:

"I'm earning $25K/year by degrading my friendships, living in expensive cities to network, constantly anxious about maintaining relationships-as-capital. For what? To barely afford rent?"

Meanwhile, AI has made material goods nearly free. A robot can build you a house for the cost of materials and energy. Food is trivial to produce. Entertainment is infinite and free.

The only expensive things are:

Land in cities (where the marketing game is played)
Positional goods (status items that signal you're winning the marketing game)
Access to the marketing pyramid (paying to network)

The Opt-Out Emerges

Phase 1: The First Communes (2045-2050)

The Realization: "We don't need to play this game."

A group of friends in the bottom 50% of the marketing pyramid make a pact:

Pool resources to buy cheap rural land
Use AI to build housing, grow food, generate power
Explicitly ban monetized relationships within the community
Create alternatives to marketing-economy income

Core Principle: "Relationships are sacred, not transactional."

Phase 2: It Spreads (2050-2060)

Why it's attractive:

For someone earning $25K in the marketing economy:

You spend $20K on rent (need to live where the networks are)
$3K on "networking expenses" (maintaining appearances)
$2K on actual survival
You're miserable and your friendships are corrupted

In the opt-out economy:

Housing costs ~$0 (AI-built, on cheap land)
Food costs ~$0 (robot farming)
Energy costs ~$0 (solar is mature)
Entertainment costs ~$0 (AI-generated)
Your relationships are genuine again

The trade-off: You give up:

Access to premium positional goods
Ability to live in major cities
Potential to "make it big" in the marketing economy
Status in mainstream society

You gain:

Authentic community
Meaningful work (because you choose to, not for survival)
Time and mental space
Dignity

The Stable Dual Society (2060+)

Society A: The Marketing Economy

~30-40% of population

Who stays:

The top 10% (earning good money, or convinced they will)
True believers (who enjoy the networking game)
The ambitious (prefer 1% chance at luxury over guaranteed modest comfort)
The status-seeking (care deeply about positional goods)

Structure:

Concentrated in major cities
Increasingly stratified and competitive
Extremely high-context (everything depends on reputation and relationships)
Wealthy elite at top funding the pyramid
Everyone else competing for crumbs

Culture:

Hustle culture on steroids
Relationships are networking opportunities
Success = access to higher-level humans
Anxiety and status competition
Connection to political power

What they produce:

Political decisions (via marketing to voters/politicians)
Consumption decisions (via marketing to consumers)
Access and gatekeeping
That's it - all material goods are made by AI

Society B: The Opt-Out Communities

~60-70% of population

Who leaves:

People burned out from marketing economy
Those who never had good networks to begin with
Creatives seeking authentic expression
People who value community over status
Those who realize the game is rigged

Structure:

Distributed across cheap rural/remote land
Network of interconnected communities (100-5000 people each)
Post-scarcity for material goods (AI provides)
Genuine relationships protected by explicit norms

Economic Model - Here's the key:

The Internal Economy

They still need some money for:

Land taxes (if any)
Resources not AI-producible (rare materials, etc.)
Trade with mainstream society (occasional needs)

How they earn it:

Not through marketing - that's banned internally. Instead:

1. Collective external marketing (arms-length)

The community as a whole contracts with corporations
"We'll deliver 10,000 verified human product reviews this month"
No individual monetizes their personal relationships
Shield individuals from transactional contamination

2. Genuine creative/cultural production

Art, music, stories, culture that emerges organically
When it has external value, the community licenses it collectively
"The Clearwater Community Theater produced something beautiful, and Netflix wants to pay for it"

3. Democratic political power

Communities vote as blocs
Can sell political influence collectively (the community decides)
But individual relationships remain protected

4. Specialized labor the community actually wants to do

Some people enjoy coding, research, teaching
Work remotely for mainstream companies
But on their own terms (part-time, project-based)
Income is partially collectivized

The Culture

Core values:

Relationship sanctity: Explicit taboo against monetizing personal relationships
Authenticity: You can just be yourself, no performance
Contribution over competition: Status comes from what you give the community
Meaningful work: You work on projects that matter to you and the community

Social norms:

Regular communal activities (meals, festivals, projects)
Rotating responsibilities (everyone helps with farming, childcare, maintenance)
Democratic decision-making (about community priorities)
Explicit teaching of "unpolluted" social skills to children

What daily life looks like:

Morning: Work in the community garden (2 hours). The work is optional but most enjoy it - physical labor, outdoors, social time.

Midday: Work on your passion project. You're learning traditional woodworking. Your furniture is beautiful and the community appreciates it. You gift pieces to friends.

Afternoon: Teach a class on woodworking to teenagers. Not because you're paid, but because they're interested and you enjoy teaching.

Evening: Community potluck. Genuine conversation. Someone plays guitar. Someone else shares poetry they wrote. No one is networking. No one is performing. Everyone is just... present.

Night: Video call with your friend in another opt-out community across the country. You're collaborating on a project neither of you will sell - you're just both interested in it.

The Interface Between Societies

Flow Between Them

Constant movement in both directions:

A → B (Marketing to Opt-Out):

Burned out marketers seeking authenticity
Young people who try marketing economy and hate it
Anyone who accumulates enough savings to buy into a community

B → A (Opt-Out to Marketing):

Young people curious about mainstream society
Those who find the communities too constraining
The ambitious who want to "make it big"
Those who miss cities and luxury

Trading Relationships

Opt-out communities provide to marketing economy:

Political power (voting blocs)
Verified human activities (focus groups, testing, feedback)
Cultural production (art, entertainment)
Occasional specialized labor

Marketing economy provides to opt-out:

Money (for land, rare resources)
Advanced manufactured goods (complex electronics, medical equipment)
Connection to political power
Entertainment/luxury goods for those who want them

Physical Separation

Geography matters:

Opt-out communities concentrated on cheap land (rural areas, declining cities, remote regions)
Marketing economy concentrated in expensive metros (NYC, SF, DC, London)
This physical separation is protective - reduces pressure to join marketing game

Why This is Stable

1. Self-reinforcing sorting

People who value:

Status, luxury, ambition → stay in marketing economy
Authenticity, community, meaning → move to opt-out

Both societies get more ideologically coherent over time.

2. Neither can eliminate the other

Marketing economy needs opt-out communities:

As voters (to maintain democracy)
As cultural producers (mainstream culture gets stale)
As pressure valve (prevent revolution)
As moral alternative (makes their system seem voluntary)

Opt-out communities need marketing economy:

For money (to buy land, pay taxes)
For complex goods (advanced medicine, etc.)
For choice (members can leave if they want)
For innovation (AI/tech development happens there)

3. Ideological legitimacy for both

Marketing economy says: "We create value through human connection and coordination. We make the real decisions. The opt-outs are freeloading off our political/economic system while virtue-signaling about authenticity. They're welcome to join us if they want to matter."

Opt-out communities say: "We've escaped the soul-crushing transactional hellscape. We've returned to genuine human flourishing. The marketing economy is a degrading pyramid scheme. They're welcome to join us if they want to be happy."

Both have a point. Both are self-satisfied.

4. The elite allow it

The ultra-wealthy who own everything don't care because:

They still control political outcomes (opt-outs vote in blocs but are small minority on many issues)
They still profit from consumption (opt-outs buy less, but marketing economy buys more)
It's a safety valve preventing violent revolution
Some of them even romanticize it (wealthy people visit opt-out communities as tourists)

The Children Question

This determines long-term stability.

What do children choose?

Raised in opt-out communities:

Some stay (value the authenticity)
Some leave for adventure/ambition (especially in teens/20s)
Many return later (after trying marketing economy)

Raised in marketing economy:

Most stay (it's what they know)
Some leave (burned out, seeking meaning)
Network effects keep them (all their relationships are there)

Long-term demographic equilibrium: Probably 60/40 or 70/30 opt-out/marketing, depending on how miserable the marketing economy is and how appealing the communities are.

Variations and Nuances

Not All Opt-Out Communities Are The Same

The spectrum:

Hardcore communes:

Near-zero money economy
Strong ideological commitment
Might be religious or spiritual
Strict rules about external contact

Soft opt-outs:

Part-time remote work is allowed
More individual freedom
Connection to mainstream society
More like "normal towns with good culture"

Specialty communities:

Artist colonies
Research communities
Educational centers
Each attracts different types

The Gray Zone

Many people straddle both:

Live in opt-out community
Do remote work for marketing economy
Visit cities occasionally
Maintain some old relationships

This gray zone is large and important - it's the bridge between societies.

The Politics

Opt-Out Political Power

Collective bargaining:

"We're 50,000 votes in this district. What will you offer us?"
Communities negotiate as blocs
This preserves individual relationship sanctity while wielding power

Issues they care about:

Land rights
Protection from forced integration
Universal basic services (healthcare)
Environmental protection
Freedom from marketing/surveillance

They're swing voters because they're not ideological in traditional left/right terms.

Marketing Economy Response

They try to:

Tax the opt-outs ("They're free-riding!")
Regulate them ("They need oversight!")
Infiltrate them (marketers trying to monetize access)

But they can't go too far because:

Opt-outs vote
Public sympathy ("Let them live their lives")
Wealthy romanticize them
It's a useful pressure valve

The Uncomfortable Questions

Is this just gentrification in reverse?

Yes, partly. Wealthy marketers can:

Buy into premium opt-out communities
Bring their marketing habits with them
Corrupt the culture

Communities develop immune responses:

Long probation periods
Explicit culture training
Willing to expel rule-breakers
Prefer poorer genuine people over wealthy infiltrators

Are the opt-outs actually free?

Not entirely. They still:

Need some money (land taxes, etc.)
Are constrained by their community's decisions
Can't easily leave (social/emotional bonds)
Depend on marketing economy for complex goods

But they're freer in the dimensions they care about:

Authentic relationships
Meaningful work
Community belonging
Time and mental space

Is this sustainable long-term?

Threats:

Climate change (affects cheap rural land)
Political backlash (forced reintegration)
Economic dependence (if marketing economy changes terms)
Cultural drift (communities change over time)
Technology (new developments might change everything)

But probably yes, because:

The fundamental human need for authentic community doesn't change
AI keeps material goods cheap
Neither society can eliminate the other
It serves everyone's interests

The Irony

The marketing dystopia creates its own antidote.

By making relationships transactional in Society A, it makes authentic relationships incredibly valuable.

By concentrating wealth in cities, it makes rural land cheap and accessible.

By automating material production, it makes opting out economically viable.

The people at the bottom of the marketing pyramid realize: "We're competing for crumbs in a rigged game. Or we could just... leave. And be happy."

And enough of them do that it becomes a stable alternative.

The Final Stable Society

Two worlds:

The Marketing Economy:

30-40% of people
Urban, competitive, anxious, wealthy (at the top)
All relationships are strategic
Controls politics and corporations
Produces: decisions and access

The Opt-Out Communities:

60-70% of people
Rural/distributed, collaborative, authentic, modest comfort
Relationships are sacred
Votes as blocs, creates culture
Produces: meaning and humanity

Neither can eliminate the other. Neither wants to.

People flow between them based on their values and life stage.

The ultra-wealthy don't care - they're above both systems.

The AI keeps producing everything material.

And humanity splits into two ways of life: those who play the marketing game, and those who refuse.