This is the "the climate has changed before" argument for economics.
> why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue?
Because there might not be enough demand for those 9 services.
Funny how all these boosters bragging about automating the economy seem to conveniently forget how much of the economy, in some way, is based around headcount and consumption - both of which are going down due to AI with no replacement being pitched, almost as if that were the plan all along.
I think it's a very different question to ask "how would this create jobs" and "will this create jobs...in today's market."
It's really not, you cannot cause a recession by increasing productivity, money doesn't disappear.
Money cannot disappear, but circulation can be confined to ever-smaller segments of the economy. Let's assume a world in which AI is good enough to do 90% if all white-collar jobs and companies have replaced positions with AI accordingly. Then the amount of money that entered the wider economy through salaries will now stay locked up in B2B transactions between AI companies, their corporate customers and their contractors. How will all the laid-off people get money? Some would probably get into blue-collar work, others will try their hand starting a business (that will also compete with AI), but all of them? What will happen to the businesses that were relying on those employees as customers?
Yes, that's exactly what will happen and you can even now see examples of unemployed software engineer building successful one-man gigs with the help of AI(not competing).
I think the concept of stable long term jobs as we knew is gone. Which might not be a bad thing.