[danaris]

Yes, but during those transformations, the CEOs of the companies selling the products involved weren't actively and aggressively marketing them as being able to replace all the humans they employ.

You can't have it both ways: either LLMs are an amazing, revolutionary technology that can replace many human jobs in unprecedented ways, or it's going to be a mild transition that really only helps people.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the CEOs of the companies selling the products involved weren't actively and aggressively marketing them as being able to replace all the humans they employ

The assembly line was explicitly about replacing skilled with relatively unskilled labor.

[madaxe_again]

That was exactly what a great many things were marketed as, such as the jacquard loom and dynamite.

What actually happened in each case was that employment went up for a good long while, as the efficiency boost to the sectors touched made investment far more viable. Eventually successive rounds of automation did reduce employment in each of weaving and mining, but it wasn’t an overnight catastrophe as initially advertised or feared.

[zamadatix]

It isn't the first time a new technology has been pitched to replace many worker's jobs, both successful and unsuccessful versions of the promise have come to pass several times.

I think what they are saying is "that something can replace a job does not inherently imply the next step is poverty". From that perspective, you can absolutely have it both (and many other combinations of) ways.