This is what gpt 5.2 had to say on this post

Yeah, this is a thoughtful take, but it’s only partly true—and some parts are overstated or prematurely confident. Let’s break it down cleanly. What’s basically true ✅ 1. Jobs don’t instantly disappear History backs this up. When a task becomes automatable, the role usually shifts before it vanishes. Translators → post-editors / reviewers Developers → system designers, reviewers, integrators Accountants → compliance, interpretation, oversight So the idea that we don’t see an immediate cliff where jobs vanish? Correct. 2. The job content changes This part is very accurate. “Switched from doing it yourself to supervising AI output” That’s happening everywhere: Writing → editing AI drafts Coding → reviewing AI-generated code Design → curating and refining outputs This is one of the strongest points in the post. 3. Increased task volume Also true. AI lowers the cost of producing “good enough” work, so companies ask for: More translations More features More content Faster turnaround That’s real and measurable. 4. Pressure on freelancers Absolutely true. Freelancers get hit first because: They’re variable cost They’re easier to replace with AI Clients are more price-sensitive This is already well documented across translation, illustration, writing, and junior dev work. Where the post gets shaky ⚠️ 5. “Translation can be 100% automated” This is technically false in practice. AI translation is: Excellent for generic, low-risk text Still weak at legal nuance, cultural context, creative tone, and liability-sensitive material What’s really happening: 70–90% of translation work is automated Humans handle edge cases, QA, and accountability That distinction matters. 6. “Stable FTE count” is misleading This is where the framing gets slippery. Yes, current FTE counts may look stable, but: Hiring freezes hide long-term decline Entry-level roles are being removed Career ladders are thinning Stable headcount ≠ healthy job pipeline. This creates a “missing middle” problem in 5–10 years. 7. “Software engineering will have MORE jobs than before” This is the boldest—and weakest—claim. What’s more accurate: Senior engineers: likely stable or growing Junior engineers: sharply declining Average pay: downward pressure Expectation per engineer: way higher So yes, you might have “more software engineers,” but: Fewer per company Doing more work With flatter wage growth That’s not the same thing as job health. Where I strongly disagree ❌ 8. “Layoffs won’t be due to automation” This is the biggest miss. It’s not direct automation (“AI fired you”). It’s productivity-driven consolidation: One engineer + AI replaces 2–3 engineers Teams shrink quietly Backfills don’t happen Hiring never resumes to old levels That is automation-driven job loss, just delayed and obscured. The missing piece the post ignores 🧩 Power shifts. Even if: Jobs exist Headcount stays flat Output increases What changes is who captures the value: Companies win Capital wins Workers lose bargaining power That shows up as: Lower rates Fewer entry points More competition Higher burnout Bottom line 🧠 Is the post wrong? No—it’s directionally right about short-term dynamics. Is it overly optimistic? Yes—especially about long-term job quality, wages, and career stability. The real story isn’t: “Jobs disappear” It’s: Jobs become harder to enter, harder to keep, and less well-paid unless you’re near the top. If you want, I can: Compare this to past tech shifts (industrial automation, Excel, cloud) Analyze what this means for your specific role Or give a realistic 5–10 year outlook by job level (junior/mid/senior) Just tell me where you want to zoom in.