> If your job is cut by AI, you've been producing mediocrity anyway.
In my opinion it’s unfortunate and inaccurate to frame this as most likely being a problem with the quality of the work of a person who was let go or who can’t find a job. It’s very possible that management thinks AI is just good enough to justify not hiring someone for the role.
Most people are doing bullshit jobs. Are we surprised they are automated away? Taste and general intelligence won't be imho. That's all I'm saying. Take agency over the career you're building. Too many people settle for whatever.
All I was saying is that your framing was callous and also likely terribly inaccurate. It assumes that management always assesses layoffs and technology adoption rationally and objectively based on merits without influence by hype, advertising, or other external forces. People are frequently laid off randomly at large companies. Layoffs at big companies often don't involve someone saying "get rid of these specific 20 copy writers because their copy is worse than what an AI produces". They will ignore performance of individuals completely and instead reduce headcount randomly across a cost center. That doesn't mean that every person who was let go was "producing mediocrity".
In my opinion it’s unfortunate and inaccurate to frame this as most likely being a problem with the quality of the work of a person who was let go or who can’t find a job. It’s very possible that management thinks AI is just good enough to justify not hiring someone for the role.