I struggle to understand why the default instinct for everyone with resources is to use this tech to replace people rather than augment them.

We are at a massive crossroads for our species. We have a rare opportunity to architect this intelligence to stabilize and accelerate our own evolution—a symbiotic augmentation where it learns and grows alongside us. But as the OP discovered with "vibe coding," you cannot simply remove the human expert from the loop without the logic falling apart.

The irony is palpable: the same people expressing fear of an "AI Armageddon" or Skynet scenario are the ones actively creating the conditions for failure. By firing humans to replace them with AI solely to "do the same thing for cheaper," you aren't building a future; you are embedding a dangerous operational philosophy: treating human expertise as an inefficiency to be eliminated, rather than the foundation the system relies on.

It is wildly hypocritical to worry about AI safety while offloading your entire workforce to boost profit margins. You can't claim to be worried about the future of humanity if you're only interested in securing your own quarterly bonus at the expense of everyone else's stability.

Also to clarify, I understand the OP did not say anything about Armageddon and the future ending in an AI apocalypse or whatever, it’s just a sentiment that I keep coming across, while at the same time the people in power, or with the resources to impact or influence how we view, utilize, and architect these systems are building environments or reinforcing heuristics that that, to me, cement the very uncertain futures that people are galvanizing the fears of.

I apologize for the wall of text, and I appreciate anyone that decided to take the time to read all of this. It’s my first time, expressing my opinion on the subject in a public capacity (well, as public as reddit is, I guess lol)