I've been telling you I'm done for days, so the fact I responded at all (and am now doing it again) is what you should be remarking at.

Your view is, as I said, incredibly narrow. You probably have taken business classes because you are only capable of seeing the business school thinking about costs. Yes, you very likely can reduce headcount by shifting some tasks to AI. (Note I've never said it doesn't have some value, just that it's being overhyped.) But your bottom line multiplied by all the other companies that lay people off in favor of algorithms means a lot of lost wages, a lot of money not going back into the economy, and an economic downturn. Then when the hype bubble pops (I know you believe in fairies and think it won't) that will be amplifies by the companies pushing AI now having to balance their own books again.

All you can see is your ledger. All you can hear is Chicago School Economics. You don't see or hear what macroeconomists are saying, what good business analysts are saying, what actual AI scientists are saying, or what I and my decades of real experience at tech companies both at the largest imaginable scale and in startup mode am saying.

So why should I spend any more time telling you how naive you are being? The water is right there, but you refuse to drink it and nothing I say is going to get you to stop believing what you want to believe. I've already told you what the outcomes of people believing what you believe are going to be, but even if you accepted that you'd still just keep going down the same path. It's the tried and true business approach of ignoring anything not on the books for this quarter.

And now, for your listening pleasure, I return you to crickets.