You don't automate jobs, you automate tasks. Introducing the technology doesn't lead to people being replaced - ie firing someone because now there is a machine doing it instead. The effects on employment are much less linear. By automating tasks which are bottlenecks, a company can do more without hiring more people, or can do the same with a smaller workforce, which in aggregate reduces demand for people in a position. Automation can de-skill a task, potentially opening up a position to less skilled workers. By changing the tasks a position performs, reorganization may occur that fundamentally changes the desirability of a position and the optimal skillset for it.
You're unlikely to see a massive dip in employment - no one likes firing people and a lot of more productive people will generate more profit than a smaller number of more productive people. Where you really see a sudden employment drop will be during a recession when people need to be laid off anyways, when things recover hiring decisions will be made with the automation's availability in mind. The people who are employed may change, wages will change, and growth trends will change, all of which can be quite disruptive on an individual level.
I completely agree, and the logical conclusion is that software makes people more productive. This means an effective reduction in the labor cost of output. This efficiency gain creates more demand. We've seen this happening for centuries now, yet every new innovation creates a moral panic around employment for some reason. I get that displacement is a thing, but that's an education issue, not an employment issue.
Because AI can't come up with new ideas or comprehensively understand problem. Basically replace your employees with AI and your company is going to stagnate until competition will take over.
