Here's a realistic path for how AI "replaces"/"displaces" a large chunk of the workforce:
- Even without AI most corpos could shed probably 10% of their workforce - or maybe more - and still be about as productive as they are now. Bunch of reasons why that's true, but here are two I can easily think of: (1) after the layoffs work shifts to the people who remain, who then work harder; (2) underperformers are often not let go for a long time or ever because their managers don't want to do the legwork (and the layoffs are a good opportunity to force that to happen).
- It's hard for leadership to initiate layoffs, because doing so seems like it'll make the company look weak to investors, customers, etc. So if you really want to cut costs by shedding 10%+ of your workforce and making the remaining 90% work harder, then you have to have a good story to tell for why you are doing it.
- AI makes for a good story. It's a way to achieve what you would have wanted to achieve anyway, while making it seem like you're cutting edge.
- Even without AI most corpos could shed probably 10% of their workforce - or maybe more - and still be about as productive as they are now. Bunch of reasons why that's true, but here are two I can easily think of: (1) after the layoffs work shifts to the people who remain, who then work harder; (2) underperformers are often not let go for a long time or ever because their managers don't want to do the legwork (and the layoffs are a good opportunity to force that to happen).
- It's hard for leadership to initiate layoffs, because doing so seems like it'll make the company look weak to investors, customers, etc. So if you really want to cut costs by shedding 10%+ of your workforce and making the remaining 90% work harder, then you have to have a good story to tell for why you are doing it.
- AI makes for a good story. It's a way to achieve what you would have wanted to achieve anyway, while making it seem like you're cutting edge.