[kcexn]

Maybe. I'm not sure its that different though? If one person can do the work of two because of power tools, then why keep both? Same with AI. How people feel about it doesn't seem relevant.

Maybe the right example is the role of tractors in agriculture. Prior to tractors you had lots of people do the work, or maybe animals. But tractors and engines eliminate a whole class of labor. You could still till a field by hand or with a horse if you want, but it's probably not commercially viable.

[agentultra]

First, creating power tools didn’t cause mass layoffs of carpenters and construction workers. There continued to be a demand for skilled workers.

Second, power tools work with the user’s intent. The user does the planning, the measuring, the cutting and all the activities of building. They might choose to use a dovetail saw instead of fasteners to make a joint.

Third, programming languages are specifications given to a compiler to generate more code. A single programmer can scale to many more customers than a labourer using tools.

The classification of centaur vs reverse-centaur tools came to me by way of Corey Doctorow.

There might be ways to use the technology that doesn’t make us into reverse centaurs but we haven’t discovered that yet. What we have in its current form isn’t a tool.

[kcexn]

Did power tools not cause layoffs? That seems like a dubious claim to me. Building a house today takes far fewer people than 100 years ago. Seems unlikely that all the extra labor found other things to do in construction.