People who try to prove an argument by analogy forget that analogies are analogues not abstractions. Nothing about horses and buggies being replaced by cars is

People who try to prove an argument by analogy forget that analogies are analogues not abstractions. Nothing about horses and buggies being replaced by cars is in the abstraction over computer science and it's relationship to AI because AI does not replace computer science. It may displace computer scientists from paid employment but that's not replacement. To break my own rule and analogise, Computer science is not a horse and buggy to F1 racing car AI, computer science is the abtraction of design principles which allowed buggies to exist, allowed horse vetinarians to exist, and allowed engineers to make engines to replace horses. It's a sub-arc branch of mathematics. Do we need mathematicians to have horses and buggies? No. We have mathemanticians to work out how many horses and buggies we need and how many we can afford, and to count their legs and divide by 4 for an approximate answer.