> Which is also I think a key argument against "AI will replace everything". Thank you for agreeing with me, but I'm sorry I did not make an argument against "

> Which is also I think a key argument against "AI will replace everything". Thank you for agreeing with me, but I'm sorry I did not make an argument against "AI will replace everything". When 990 of the 1000 previously fully employed workers are now all of a sudden put out of work, yes "AI/automation does replace pretty much everything". It creates a massive disruption in society. Again, in the video I linked, during the whole of 20th century tens of millions of people in the US were put out of work, and only one new kind of job was created (computer programmers) that resulted in more than a million new jobs. Even then it's 30th in rank (in terms of total jobs), after 29 types of jobs that were there even in the 19th century. I don't understand how you can see a comment that links to CGPGrey's 'Humans Need Not Apply' and conclude that the commenter is making a point against 'AI will replace everything'