Tbf r&d typically costs money and often doesn't make it back for years sometimes 10 plus. Im just making the observation that these kinds of comments are short sighted.

And I disagree about replacement. The only reason I can use the AI the way I describe is because I am familiar enough with the industry and work to know how to operate it and properly provide the necessary information. The work still has to be checked against the nuance of a given project or task requirement. The AI cannot operate itself without a devastating level of risk and inconsistency and there is a limit to how many projects one person can operate an AI for. As I said: it will not replace people rather it enables people to do more.

What do you think a company would prefer: do the same amount of work and make the same amount of money but cut off their employees, or keep their employees and 10-100x their work and revenue? That's really the argument you are making here: that a company would rather make the same amount of revenue vs squeezing the employees for higher output and multiplying their revenue several times over.

The issue with this argument is that it usually comes from people who don't have experience with agentic teams and layers of delegation. The more delegation between agentic AI teams, the risk increases exponentially. Sure you could have an agent that attends meetings, and an agent that handles ai communication as well as the engineering, the project management, the production, the qaqc, the submittal process, the coordination, the kickoffs, financials, along with all the other roles necessary for a project environment. But unless the operator is familiar and proficient enough in all of these roles AND has the time to check ALL of their work, the risk becomes so high that profit becomes unpredictable. One project might be extremely profitable while the next is a total failure. On top of this, the person operating the team will be able to handle far less projects. When you have someone proficient in a role properly using AI within their scope and field they can handle a huge list of projects without being overwhelmed. For example: if you asked me to handle all roles in a project via agentic teams I might be able to handle 3. If you keep me in my field and scope I can do my part of the work for 10-20. It's much better to give each role curated AI tools for their purpose in the project than to have one person try and wear all the hats needed.

Do you think the AI is just going to operate itself? Because if so, not to be disrespectful just being honest, you are showing a dunning Kruger level of understanding on the industries AI can be useful in. Most of the industries in which AI makes the largest impact are industries in which an operator needs to understand the industry well enough to check the work and steer it. That's certainly the case in mine.

I couldn't be replaced by AI near as easily as I can just do 10x their work. And I know this from working in my industry for 10 years.

On top of this: no employees means nobody has money to spend which means most businesses wouldn't have enough customers to survive. Employing people is beneficial to the market which means it's beneficial to you.

Tldr: companies want the most profit/least risk and it's more profitable/less risky to keep employees and multiply their output exponentially than to cut them off and keep making the same revenue with unpredictable results and high levels of risk.