[fabian2k]

I think the argument here is a bit of a strawman, though there is a good point in there as well. AI will not automate all customer support, but it has the potential to automate a large fraction of it.

The anecdote in there is about complex B2B enterprise software. That's not the majority of customer support, and is very heavy on escalating to actual experts.

You don't have to remove 100% of the jobs to have huge effects. Automating large parts of a few sectors would already create significant disruptions.

[skywhopper]

The article literally addresses this point. The easily automated stuff doesn’t save that much money. The big costs of support are the hard things you can’t automate.

[fabian2k]

For this specific business. I don't think that is true for every business or field.

[mmiliauskas]

Finally. Thank you! This was indeed my point that everyone seem to have missed.

[motbus3]

Not putting names but a company I know closely had 20 engineers and now has only 4. And I feel like they plan for less

[windward]

>And I feel like they plan for less

I think this mentality must have its own imminent apocalypse. Gifted with an enormous increase in potential productivity, the decision is to do the same but cheaper? Who allocates capital to such spiritless commodification? It all feels like using a printing press to make one bible a month.

There must be a role that can be more productive. It might not necessarily be our skillsets that fit those roles - and the roles might be more stratified - but someone is going to be able to be do more, be paid more.