This is a very interesting study and as someone working in this space ("intelligent" automation) incredibly germane. I have not read this fully yet and may be r

This is a very interesting study and as someone working in this space ("intelligent" automation) incredibly germane. I have not read this fully yet and may be repeating findings but did want to chime in on something I've noticed in regards to this "replacement theory of automation" that doesn't quite hold up: businesses are inherently efficient. I have yet to come across an organization that has the opportunity to eliminate a skilled role - that is a white collar, certified expert position (think accountant or financial analyst) - because I have automated one of their business processes. I have worked for small, medium, and very large enterprise organizations. In every instance there has been at least two or three other business processes that were and will be out of our automation capabilities that the team member simply could not do because they were spending the vast majority of their time doing a business process that could be automated. Automation simply frees that team member up to do what was previously seen as "value added" work but now can be considered business critical. The author of this study probably even touches on that by addressing how the meaning of work and a job role simply shifts upon the automation of previously executed business processes by moving to what are still considered "in role" processes.