This is such a disingenuous comment. The entire rest of the section where you lifted this quote from directly addresses the thing you’re claiming no one will ever even try to address. And they even close the section by acknowledging that “this time it’s different” might actually be true with AI, and that we simply don’t have enough data to say for sure!

> The entire rest of the section where you lifted this quote from directly addresses the thing you’re claiming no one will ever even try to address.

Please point me to what I asked for, an example of what this magical new job actually looks like. What does a person with that job do on a day to day basis, in very broad terms. I didn't spot anything like this in the paper.

> And they even close the section by acknowledging that “this time it’s different” might actually be true with AI, and that we simply don’t have enough data to say for sure!

The paper is basically a round-up of three different viewpoints. One of them (Acemoglu) I'm much more in agreement with than the others, and its his contributions you are referencing above.

The quote I pulled came from Briggs. He's the one I want more information from on what these jobs will look like and in what ways these new jobs are safe from AI displacement when the lost jobs they replace are not.