I'm a bit disappointed this part of the conversation is buried under everyone arguing about whether the article is right about AI or not, since the real interes

I'm a bit disappointed this part of the conversation is buried under everyone arguing about whether the article is right about AI or not, since the real interesting part of the article is why the author(s) seem to think that the reason McDonalds is doing signing bonuses is because people are just just not working, and the article never seems to really understand why people aren't flocking to jobs colloquially known to be absolutely awful and shit jobs. Similarly, I'm very disappointed that the discussions in the article focus so much on _replacement_ of these workers, but in terms of human replacement, it really seems like AI is better suited to displace management and executives, not the people who perform specialized and physical work. AI should help people and extend their abilities, and right now it's very good at that. It can be used to make our lives easier _now_, not replace us, and I think this is the real reason the article is so heavily discussed. I think the article explains how the author released a lot of the conclusions they did, and I agree, the author is jumping around way too fast and in my interpretation, making some very wild assertion in the article without further fleshing out their points.