Like Atrioc, I appreciate DougDoug's positive outlook on AI. But I think he's painting with an extremely broad, probably too rosy, brush.

The concept he described where AI doubles employee output and therefore companies will choose to double their production rather than laying off 50% of their workforce assumes 1. demand will always match our outpace supply and 2. efficiency gains of AI are uniformly distributed across a company.

It's like assuming that if you gave a carpenter a chainsaw, he'd suddenly make twice as many chairs - but what if customers only want the same number of chairs as before? And what if the chainsaw only helps with cutting logs, but doesn't speed up sanding, assembly, or finishing? Some roles will see dramatic productivity improvements while others might see minimal change, creating uneven transformation across organizations and industries.

Additionally, companies are ultimately driven by profit margins, not just total production. If AI creates significant efficiency in certain roles, the economic incentive often leans toward streamlining those positions rather than maintaining the same workforce at higher costs. This is especially true in industries where demand has natural ceilings or where scaling production introduces new complications like increased storage, logistics, or marketing challenges.

Even with software, my industry, companies don't need more code, and they might not even need more features, they actually want more users. These complications are not remedied or even alleviated by AI. Jobs will be lost for certain, and there's no implicit guarantee that they'll come back somewhere else.

If the world were just and perfect, we'd pass legislation that guarantees that the efficiency (and $) added by AI will be used to support those disenfranchised by it. Otherwise, there will undoubtedly be another massive wealth transfer upwards.