"People assume that as long as their role remains intact, their relevance, income, and career trajectory are safe.
The problem, often, is not so much that the job disappears as much as the fact that its value goes down.
The sessions musician example is interesting because the system changed in a way that devalued their job. Superior musical talent could no longer easily be linked to better royalties.
The link between higher expertise and higher pay had been decoupled.
We see the same effects play out with AI where the link between higher expertise and higher pay breaks down.
But in this case, it is an outcome of tool augmentation. In general, tools that augment average skilled workers to perform at par with high skilled workers have a flattening effect. Expertise and pay get decoupled.
This problem is further exacerbated with AI because of the learning advantage of AI. The more you use AI, the more you train it to become capable of doing things that you get paid to do today. As AI becomes more capable, your own job fragments further and what remains of it may increasingly not justify the pay you used to command.
This is a case of augmentation (someone using AI) leading to an adverse outcome where you continue to retain the job but no longer command the skill premium.
And organizations, eager to avoid disruption, often reinforce this illusion by keeping roles in place even as they start changing what those roles mean and how much they get paid."
https://platforms.substack.com/p/the-many-fallacies-of-ai-wont-take?publication_id=27339&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=no83&utm_medium=email