What jobs will less intelligent, lower skilled people do in the future?

I think your assumption that "dumb people" wont have a job is right but that has always been the case. How well you do financially isn't really based on intelligence but motivation. Besides, the majority of jobs today require you to go to some on the job training for a few months. I believe this will continue forever until we can download "how to" manuals into our brain. Secondly, technology is making it easier for anyone to do anything. Prior to Wordpress, the average person couldn't start a website. We will see the same trend in mobile apps and even augmented reality apps. Who knows what careers self-authoring software will have? Imagine what cheap 3d printers will do? Programmable robots? Driverless cars? Thirdly, we still need people to work in the hospitality sector. Imagine going to your favorite Indian restaurant and being served by a robot? Even if that's the case, it'll become a competitive advantage to employ humans. I also think in the medical field we will still need humans, sure IBM's Watson looks promising but it's more of a tool. Finally, while it's fun to imagine doom and gloom. Remember civilization will always figure a way out. We can take Joseph Schumpeter's "creative destruction" theory and apply it to human history and we can make a strong case that we will always figure out how to survive. Hey we've made it this far.

Train robots to do menial tasks.

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.” &  â€œScience is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.” - Albert Einstein may provide pointers!

This is an argument I have had in the past with America's focus on trying to reclaim manufacturing as opposed to centering on developing more technically skilled labor forces. The issue rests with the education system and the way that students are taught. There are not enough applicable real world subjects that translate to role responsibilities in a company.

All human beings have an incredibly high intelligence and an incredible potential to contribute inventions, ideas, and leadership. I think the question is flawed by its assumption that low-intelligence people exist or that people who are less intelligent than others are not capable of remarkable achievements. Furthermore, the question asks about the future. I assume that education rates and leisure time that allows for greater education and creativity will increase in the future. This assumption, if true, further buttresses my argument that every human being is a genius waiting to be unlocked, rather than a dull robot begging for the assembly line.

This question has been bugging me. It is sort of an irritant to my soul. Imagine a handful of sand in a jar of vaseline. Yea, that kind of feeling.   In my opinion, we all need each other. (Smart, dumb and everything in between)   I do not know your background but I have an unusual background. (Lived the native sort of life during my youth and stumbled in acadamia.)   In short, what you would consider dumb people, in my view, do pretty brilliant things.   Smart people do some pretty stupid things.   For example, have you ever gone camping with inteligent people. Crap, if it wasn't for my upbringing, many of them would not have survived.   Have you ever gone to a museum with what you would consider dumb people? I admit, I was at time annoyed at their lack of appreciation but they sure could identify crap no matter who made it.   Anyway, I truly believe we need a healthy balance of all kinds of people with all kinds of levels of brain and brawn in order to inhabit this blue marble.

We might need to consider whether or not everyone has to work in the future. Already, much of the left half of the bell curve is subsidized by social programs. Maintaining the facade that they are only receiving these services as a safety net until they can get trained for the work force is becoming increasingly difficult.

Tools are objects that enhance human capabilities. The better the tool, the greater the amount by which it enhances capabilities. Eventually, tools can get so powerful relative to human capabilities, that the differences in human capabilities being enhanced become too small to be relevant. Some argument could be made that the best tools are also those that are most complex to operate, but I do not think this is the general case. With more and more advanced autopilots, airplanes are becoming less and less difficult to fly; navigation, electronic and hydraulic systems make cars easier to operate, higher level languages and smarter compilers make it easier to write code, advanced assembly machinery and the assembly line are easier than artisanal manufacturing, autocorrect makes it easier to write without errors, advanced calculators automate a lot of mathematical functions, and so on. At most, advanced tools require training rather than intelligence or any other 'inherent' skill. With tools (rather than humans) generating much of the value, with those tools having no use for the value themselves (i.e. you don't pay a hammer a salary), and with everyone being, in principle, capable of being trained to use those tools with sufficiently equal efficacy, the only question that becomes relevant is how access and ownership of those tools is distributed. Put otherwise, if labour's share in the economy greatly diminishes, everyone will need to start out their economically-productive lives with control over sufficiently large pool of capital.

Here is one author's rather interesting perspective on this and the whole flood of creative jobs.  http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2013/07/10/you-are-not-an-artisan/