I agree with most of what this article argues.

At the same time, when I think about rejecting a new idea or tool, I wonder whether we might be resisting a change that could be beneficial to the broader population in the long run. It reminds me of how, when calculators first became widely available, teachers resisted their use in early grades out of concern that they would make students “dumb”.

I don’t think we’ll ever reach a clear consensus on what is good or bad, or on which ideas should be rejected versus accepted.

Aren’t most inventions anti-labor by this rationale? We employ fewer farmers than we used to, but this is good for society because people who would be farmers are now working on other things.

The author's framing is too generous to management.

This isn't about AI at all.

Amazon lost money in 2022, started cutting, then posted $30B, then $59B in profit while continuing to cut. Pinterest had one mildly bad year, then a record year, then announced layoffs yesterday.

The pattern: once a company discovers it can reduce headcount without hurting revenue, it never stops. AI is just the current justification. Before that it was "synergies" and "restructuring." The story changes; the outcome doesn't.

Jassy admitted as much on the Q3 earnings call: the cuts are "not really financially driven and it's not even really AI-driven." He's telling you the truth. They cut because they can, and Wall Street rewards it.

The real anti-labor mechanism isn't AI. It's the discovery that headcount is decoupled from output.