I'm not sure I follow your logic: if everyone has "multiple instances" of being able to fully automate part of there job, than the number of people in that role can be reduced in proportion to the amount of work automated.

Further, to your original point, because these human bottle necks exist and are not parallelizable that means you cannot choose to increase your productivity (since the bottle neck will slow things down regardless) but lower your costs.

AI allows less people to do the same amount of work, and based on your claims, you can't necessary scale up more work to those same people. How do you determine that this will incorrectly lead to a reduction in the workforce?

That's not what OP was saying, they were saying they experienced multiple instances of LLM handling some tricky problem. But just because it can solve Tuesday's problem doesn't mean it can solve Thursday's.

And this:

>the number of people in that role can be reduced in proportion to the amount of work automated.

Components of humans are not fungible. If one fifth of my job is easier but the other 4/5ths require my specialized human judgment, you can't remove one person out of five and pretend everything will be okay. That's what I mean by the two-step; you just did it yourself.

> How do you determine that this will incorrectly lead to a reduction in the workforce?

This gets back into Theory of Constraints. Identify the constraint. Alleviate the constraint, not the symptom. If you're in a factory, and transmogrifiers are building so many widgets that your whatchamaflorpits starts falling behind, you don't scuttle 20% of your transmogrifiers, you buy more watchamaflorpits!

Instead people are like, "oh gosh, my developers are idle, guess we have to lay them off."