Many similar claims have not aged well.

We’re deep into ‘no true Scotsman’ territory.

I don't understand the logic in this. Before AI, if a job was crazy popular and a lot more people got involved passionate or not, it's still _people_ doing things at the rate limit of _people_? Even people with disproportionately large amount of resources to do things they still had to hire the _people_ who can do the job to do it? How is that anything close to the issues presented in the article?

Passion also has nothing to do with being professional. You can do a job extremely well by being professional but not at all passionate about it, and you can be extremely passionate about something but absolutely terrible at doing it as a job. The labor force requires you to be professional, not passionate. Great if you get to be both because you are the lucky few.

I run a business and have occasionally benefited from the fact that people want work so badly that I can get their skilled labor at an absurdly low price.

AI is having a devastating effect on the psychology of the industry, regardless of the fact that it largely sucks. The author of this piece makes an excellent point.