I see this thinking thrown around often, but I don't see how net new jobs would be created by efficiencies. Amazon wouldn't adopt robots if it created more employment overhead downstream. Sure, there will be robot maintainers, but not at a replacement level of the roles replaced. Companies adopt technologies because they reduce the net amount of human input (cost) required, right?

Well, the industrial revolution has been a story of continuous efficiency gains and increasing automation, but somehow there's still enough jobs.

Certainly, for 95% of americans that's been true recently, but ai seems more positioned as a qualitative than a quantitative shift. maybe my defining it in terms of efficiency is incorrect. Moreover these types of mundane tasks are a product of that industrialization. so i'm puzzled by the thinking of 'more efficiency to fix the pains brought on by efficiencies'

I'm sure the cows say the same to one another all the way up to the gates of the slaughterhouse.

i think at least one unemployable generation of low skill workers will be sacrificed before this kind of thing becomes good news

hopefully