David Oks isn’t worried about AI job loss:

The most important thing to know about labor substitution, the place where any serious analysis has to start, is this: labor substitution is about comparative advantage, not absolute advantage. The question isn’t whether AI can do specific tasks that humans do. It’s whether the aggregate output of humans working with AI is inferior to what AI can produce alone: in other words, whether there is any way that the addition of a human to the production process can increase or improve the output of that process. That’s a very different question. AI can have an absolute advantage in every single task, but it would still make economic sense to combine AI with humans if the aggregate output is greater: that is to say, if humans have a comparative advantage in any step of the production process.

It’s certainly the case right now, even in a domain like software engineering where the extent of AI capabilities is on full display, that the human-AI combination, the “cyborg,” is superior to AI alone—not least because you still need to tell the coding agent your preferences, or your company’s preferences, or your customer’s preferences. This is good for human labor, because it means that workers are more productive, and as long as demand for the goods they produce is elastic, we should be pretty optimistic about human labor under this regime. (This is probably why the number of job postings for software engineers has increased in the twelve months since Claude Code was first released.)

This appears to be