Historically, people have been pretty good at predicting the effects of new technologies on existing jobs. But quite bad at predicting the new jobs / careers / industries that are eventually created with those technologies.

This is why free market economies create more wealth over time than centrally planned economies: the free market allows more people to try seemingly crazy ideas, and is faster to recognize good ideas and reallocate resources toward them.

In the absence of reliable prediction, quick reaction is what wins.

Anyway, even if AI does end up “destroying” tons of existing white collar jobs, that does not necessarily imply mass unemployment. But it’s such a common inference that it has its own pejorative: Luddite.

And the flip side of Ludddism is what we see from AI boosters now: invoking a massive impact on current jobs as a shorthand to create the impression of massive capability. It’s a form of marketing, as the CNN piece says.