> The lower-bound estimate represents 18 percent of the total reduction in man-hours in U.S. agriculture between 1944 and 1959; the upper-bound estimate, 27 percent
At the same time, I actually wouldn’t mind a world in which AI agents cost $5000 a month if that’s what companies want to charge.
I feel like at some level that would remove the possibility of making a “just as good as humans but basically free” arguments and move discussion in the direction that feels more productive: discussing real benefits and shortcomings of both. Eg, loss of context with agents vs HR costs with humans, etc…
It’s always this tired argument. “But it’s so much better than six months ago, if you aren’t using it today you are just missing out.”
I’m tired of the hype boss.