This. Economists have had some of the most ludicrous takes on automation Ive ever seen. There was a ball state U paper for instance that mathematically confuse

This. Economists have had some of the most ludicrous takes on automation Ive ever seen. There was a ball state U paper for instance that mathematically confused offshoring with automation: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs-killer-is-not-china-its-automation.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs... There was one about 3 years ago from HSBC where they made a "creativity score" and assigned it to each job and just assumed that "low creativity" jobs would be automated: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-are-the-jobs-with-the-highest-risk-of-automation-190752107.html?guccounter=1 https://finance.yahoo.com/news/these-are-the-jobs-with-the-h... Key takeaway - just 7 more years and we will no longer need construction workers! I dont think they actually ever dig down into the nuts and bolts of the economics of automation or try to understand it on a low level and their knowledge of engineering is childlike. I think this guy in particular is imagining a certain level of literal magic going on under the hood of GPT which definitely does not exist. My guess is that this is all an elaborate way of saying that layoffs are coming and that shareholders should just assume that it's pure profit for them because AI is magic.