It's like, oh, we shouldn't do anything against Hitler because our army might commit war crimes. The reason for the opponents of war is war crimes? Can we have a war without committing crimes? If it's not possible, then the question boils down to whether it's worth it? And you have to throw the moral abacus at whether war, with its possibilities, is morally preferable or the tragedies that happen without it. The Islamic Republic regime is the most evil government the world has ever seen.
In a free market, there are many competitors, new startups, companies and teams may be created, but the general trend is that fewer people are needed to produce a product as productivity increases. A few years ago, a programmer would look for a front-end programmer and vice versa, but now it is not an obvious issue because they can almost work full stack for their small projects.
I had thought about this and this is an accounting issue. It's not always the case that if one worker can build one meter of rail per hour, then with a thousand workers we can finish one kilometer of rail in an hour. Maybe more efficiency is not needed and we need to produce a cheaper product, so we make layoffs.
America: Get rid of communism and become a democratic government so that your people are free and your government is not a threat to us. Are you upset that a liberal government is preventing the maturation of an authoritarian communist government so that a result similar to North Korea does not happen? Sanctions and blockades are what achieve this, and these things do not happen with diplomatic handshakes.
A common misconception about AI is that it is intended to fully replace humans, which is incorrect. The purpose of AI is to reduce the need for human labor, and it has already been doing so. For example—though this is not an exact figure—a task that previously required 15 people might now only need 10. In no instance has the human element been completely replaced; rather, the reliance on manual labor has simply been reduced.