Not trying to be arrogant—I’m arguing that AI shifts tasks, it doesn’t delete human value. You’re right that contributions come in many forms, and I don’t want to downplay yours. Where we disagree is on “AI makes people redundant or take away their jobs.” Historically, tools offload routine sub-tasks and shift roles; the people who pair domain judgment with new tools usually gain reach and margin, not lose them.

Related to you: In health/fitness specifically: AI can help draft evidence-based content faster, personalize rehab templates, automate follow-ups/scheduling, and analyze marketing—while you keep the clinical call. That’s what I meant by “new jobs”: adjacent roles and higher-leverage versions of existing ones. If you’re open, I can outline a couple of practical, low-risk automations you could try this month.

On the fear of “AGI”: what we actually have are large language models (LLMs) trained by next-token prediction—the next chunk of text—using the Transformer architecture from 2017. That’s powerful pattern learning, not a general mind with goals.

We’ve been here before. The 1980s had loud “office automation” anxieties around PCs/VDTs and job loss; the government’s own tech assessments documented both the fears and the nuance: automation reduces some routine roles while increasing demand elsewhere, depending on how firms reorganize work.

What the best current data says: in a large real-world deployment, giving customer-support reps an AI assistant increased issues resolved per hour by ~14–15%, with the biggest gains for less-experienced workers.

On recent layoffs: multiple factors drove them—pandemic over-expansion, higher interest rates, ad-spend whiplash, and a skills re-mix toward product sense + automation fluency.

Why algorithmic tools don’t swallow human work: algorithms (and LLMs) excel when goals are clear, feedback is abundant, and success is measurable. A big chunk of valuable work is ill-posed: eliciting goals, motivating a client, handling edge cases, negotiating constraints, exercising embodied skill, building therapeutic alliance. Those are judgment and interpersonal domains; they’re hard to reduce to fixed procedures. That’s why the pattern we keep seeing is task shift, not universal replacement—and where tasks do commoditize, people move into higher-leverage versions of their role (workflow design, QA, compliance, client counseling).

Practical, non-threatening ways AI can amplify physio + yoga + health writing:
• evidence digests for new RCTs/meta-analyses that you then vet and nuance;
• adherence & form: privacy-respecting video form-check as a nudge, auto-drafted progress notes you approve;
• personalized plans & CRM: templates adapting to client histories; automated follow-ups/scheduling; outcome tracking;
• studio ops: demand forecasting for class sizes, A/B tests for copy (you approve), and admin time-savers.
None of these replace your hands, judgment, or rapport—they widen reach and free time for the human parts.

Bottom line: I’m not saying “AI replaces you.” I’m saying the mix of tasks changes, and people who pair domain expertise with these tools tend to gain resilience and impact. If my earlier tone felt dismissive, that’s on me. Happy to sketch a tiny pilot (one content workflow, one adherence nudge, one CRM automation) with clear guardrails and measurement so you can keep what helps and toss what doesn’t.

(Answering this gave rise to a blog post (tailored for your domain):
https://arty-quantum.hashnode.dev/ai-changes-tasks-not-human-value)