I agree until the end - won’t replace people - it will replace people. There are tons of people who a) can’t or won’t learn how to maximize their value with the

I agree until the end - won’t replace people - it will replace people. There are tons of people who a) can’t or won’t learn how to maximize their value with the fools, b) some jobs will outright be automated and they’re jobs that require little executive intelligence and judgement. Not everyone is smart - the median IQ is 100. I expect a hollowing out of non manual labor work under 115 IQ. Further, world models and robotics will start hollowing all but the most poorly paid manual labor or the highest skill, which most people are incapable of. There will be a large hollowing out of labor across the low end. The fact we haven’t fully automated everything in ~3 years seems to be the proof this isn’t really happening. It takes at least a decade to iron out how a new technology fits into things how to exploit it efficiently, and this specific technology requires a lot of subtle research and building tooling and infrastructural code, processes, and techniques we’ve never built before. It also has a large physical infrastructure requirement. However for those manual tasks above (effectively any sort of coding, classification, labeling, task oriented data work) my experience is LLMs have much higher precision and recall at any scale of work without labor issues around hiring and ramp up/idle time, let alone cost. I’m not saying this is good - but it is absolutely true and in my last two jobs we’ve eliminated massive numbers of roles for people and we are just beginning in the cycle and not very mature. By the end I expect as many as 20k+ reduced, maybe much much more, from my current company in these sorts of roles.