I get that you think software can only improve because it evidently gets more efficient and fast over time and that means anything humans do for money is liable

I get that you think software can only improve because it evidently gets more efficient and fast over time and that means anything humans do for money is liable to be replaced by computers. What I think you fail to realize is that better technology enables people to become better at what they want to do. There are now more _professional_ chess players than in the 90s. Because people like to play chess? That's circular reasoning isn't it? People can train and learn from software, with the end goal of being better players and the economics of the game have because of this absorbed more people. When you take a snapshot of a field of human activity and imagine the next one, you guess there will be less people and more machines. This is naive and unfounded in history. There are now more fashion designers and tailors and a more complex sartorial economy than before robotic looms. Even accounting for population growth. There won't be less voice actors in a generation because of robotic voice acting. There will be a more diverse and more complex economy around producing voice content. Predicting machines will replace people is predicated on a industrial view of the economy where people are either capitalists or workers and capitalists vie to use capital to reduce labor costs. In practice, many trade-offs apply, and often the introduction of technology changes dynamics in unpredictable ways. Not everything in the economy is some form of inefficient manual labor that can be profitably replaced by a box. This whole "entitled workers shouldn't expect to deserve an income" smacks of elitist propaganda. Technology changes culture and economy in complex and nuanced ways, and the caricature of workers mad at clever engineers robbing them of cushy jobs is usually just a front for selling some mass produced lower grade substitute. And the people working on the high quality stuff don't get replaced by robots. They learn how to use the technology to innovate and add more value, out-competing these sorts. Take the auto industry for example. They went heavily into robotics for decades, automated welding heavily and raced to the bottom culminating in a heavy series of recalls in early 00s. Meanwhile, skilled welders have become some of the highest payed industrial workers and what did the auto industry do to climb up the value ladder again? Crammed their cars full of non-robot made software.