[huimang]

These supposed "productivity gains" are only touted by the ones selling the product, i.e. the ones who stand to benefit from adoption. There is no standard way to measure productivity since it's subjective. It's far more likely that companies will use whatever scapegoat they can to fire people with as little blowback as possible, especially as the other commenter noted, people were getting hired like crazy.

Each one of the roles you listed above is only passable with AI at a superficial glance. For example, anyone who actually reads literature other than self-help and pop culture books from airport kiosks knows that AI is terrible at longer prose. The output is inconsistent because current AI does not understand context, at all. And this is not getting into the service costs, the environmental costs, and the outright intellectual theft in order to make things like illustrations even passable.

[motorest]

> These supposed "productivity gains" are only touted by the ones selling the product (...)

I literally pasted an announcement from the CEO of a major corporation warning they are going to decimate their workforce due to the adoption of AI.

The CEO literally made the following announcement:

> "As we roll out more generative AI and agents, it should change the way our work is done," Jassy wrote. "We will need fewer people doing some of the jobs that are being done today, and more people doing other types of jobs."

This is not about selling a product. This is about how they are adopting AI to reduce headcount.

[baconbrand]

The CEO is marketing to the company’s shareholders. This is marketing. A CEO will say anything to sell the idea of their company to other people. Believe it or not, there is money to be made from increased share prices.