> if you automate 99% of a job, that last 1% the human has to do is incredibly valuable because it’s bottlenecking everything else.
The author is being (intentionally) naive here.
History and current research suggest that when technology automates the vast majority of a complex job, it can lead to the "deskilling" of the human worker.
This Lancet article (published Oct 2025) discovered that doctors were found to be less adept at finding precancerous growths during colonoscopies after just three months of using an AI tool designed to spot them: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langas/article/PIIS2468-1...
And the thing is, I think the above finding is pretty intuitive.
If AI performs 99% of a radiologist's diagnostic work, the human's role will very likely be reduced to a skill that is more routine, that requires less expertise, like a final check or something - and thus commands lower wages.
If we think of AI as a machine, it is stochastic, not deterministic. It breaks our cause-and-effect understanding of machines.
If we think of AI as a agency, it does not have goals or beliefs. It mimics goals, following a mathematical path to an optimal answer.
So, we are confused, frustrated, angry: "What the heck is this thing?!"