And like to anyone else who hints that “automation creates better jobs”, I have to add: but not for us. Maybe for the next or the generation after that.

Industrial and technological progress has birthed better conditions overall, but at a cost of locally worse ones. Mine workers that got displaced didn’t end up being machine operators - most of them landed on benefits or sporadic gig work. Only the next generation was able to be properly trained and educated to be able to benefit from the technological advancement en masse. And we might see that happening again.

> I'm sure the Telegraph operators, human calculators, mine workers and all sorts of people have asked themselves this question. It's obvious that it feels strange to suddenly be part of the cohort asking but I assure you it's not new. And the answer hasn't changed much since.

I don't buy this argument, much like I don't buy the similar "they said the same when calculators were introduced".

It negates that some changes are qualitatively and scale-wise different. Also, by gradually chipping away at things that humans do, you (we) keep shrinking and shrinking until there's nothing left, every step of the way some people claiming "well, the telegraph operators said the same". Keep in mind that, while it's hyperbole, some AI entrepreneurs are actually saying stuff like "maybe jobs will become a hobby". Unrealistic for now, maybe, but if they do become a hobby, what leverage will we have at all?

In other words, it's true the past is worth keeping in mind, but not to the exclusion of the possibility that this time it's different. Or that the trends of the past actually point to harm in the near future.