ALL of these links mention it, maybe you didn't read all the material, the Blair Institute I linked as a whole in depth section just on it, in fact if you cntrl F "unemp" you'll find half the site turns yellow. The whole McKinley report starting at page 7 is about nothing but job market shifts for 10+ pages, and If you look at the OEDC report, you'll find lots of referenced to it, AND the ability to find further research (Mokyr et al., 2015).
You're right, I am incorrect I didn't account for your nuance. My bad.
I'll try to dig it up later but that was what I'd been reading on the final part of my comment, I'l try to find the report because it was good (I'll reply to my this comment later tonight if I find it) - but the reports I've read that kinda allude to that is more messaged as "AI automation is deeper than we expect" (I don't know these labour market economists are using the term AGI) - and the most recent recent stuff (late 2024) is basically saying our measurement criteria is wrong so we don't know what is going to happen at all too bad so sad.
Telephone operators is the one most people go to because it happened quickly and it was a lot of people, but there was also a lot of manual work generally available back then.
The report from Tony Blair institute is pretty good, unfortunately they write:
AI capabilities, however, are fast evolving. The next wave is expected to be “strong” or “general” AI (AGI). AGI applications will exhibit more autonomy, be able to adapt to different contexts and not be limited to specific tasks – similar to human capability. Beyond this, AI systems smarter than any individual human (“artificial super intelligence”) and systems smarter than all humans (“the singularity”) are possible further in the future.
For the purposes of this project, we exclude these more advanced versions of AI because their disruptive potential is so great and they are still thought to be some decades away.
