[MeetingsBrowser]

I also don't understand that take.

Imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly 2 more people volunteer to mow yard for your company for free!

Is your reaction to fire two of the paid employees and keep mowing the same number of yards (with reduced payroll costs), or to expand the business to mow more yards?

Which of those responses feels more in line with a "strong and growing" business that is "continuing to support more customers" and has "improving profitability"?

[xeckr]

Now imagine you run a mowing service with 4 employees. Suddenly an unbounded number of people appear on the job market who are ready to work for your company at a 5% the cost of your previous employees. Best of all, they become more competent and less expensive over time. You can't yet fire your entire original roster all at once since they need to teach the new hires the specifics of the job, but after that's done, what do you need them for?

[MeetingsBrowser]

No sane person is claiming AI can fully replace a human worker today.

It is a productivity multiplier at least for now.

[d0100]

If you apply Pareto to productivity, you can fire a lot of people and still manage

[Refreeze5224]

A fundamental attribute of capitalism is that labor costs are a regrettable cost center, and any reduction in labor costs without a resulting loss in profit/perceived productivity is a big win. AI is a big win for capitalists, and not so much for anyone who is now suddenly "made redundant". And since we treat shareholder value as sacred and inviolate, too bad for workers who lose their job in this deal.