I don't think any previous disruption was as destructive as this. Firstly it happens much faster and affects many more people at once, and secondly it doesn't seem to create any new jobs for the ones it replaces.
The industrial revolution took at least a century depending on how you count, and it created more jobs than it destroyed.
The introduction of computers obliterated whole office floors of employees at banks and insurance companies but it created even more work at companies that sold computers and software and consultant hours.
Ai takes millions of jobs and replaces them with a few thousand caretakers at megawatt datacenters. The workforce at Anthropic and OpenAI is comparable to a game development studio. If all they end up doing is reducing the workforce of JP Morgan by 10%, society still has a net loss of jobs.
That said, it's at least possible Ai will eventually end up creating a bunch of new work indirectly, by enabling people to do more than they ever imagined they could. One can hope.
I think that argument could have been made at any major conjuncture of creative destruction throughout history, if "employed" is construed broadly.
The industrial revolution took at least a century depending on how you count, and it created more jobs than it destroyed.
The introduction of computers obliterated whole office floors of employees at banks and insurance companies but it created even more work at companies that sold computers and software and consultant hours.
Ai takes millions of jobs and replaces them with a few thousand caretakers at megawatt datacenters. The workforce at Anthropic and OpenAI is comparable to a game development studio. If all they end up doing is reducing the workforce of JP Morgan by 10%, society still has a net loss of jobs.
That said, it's at least possible Ai will eventually end up creating a bunch of new work indirectly, by enabling people to do more than they ever imagined they could. One can hope.