The argument being made here is really incredible when you unpack it.

1) The construction of the Empire State Building was particularly effective due to the depth of human-to-human collaboration.

2) Isn't it great that we can burn a bunch of dinosaur blood to convince ourselves that we don't need other humans?

This is a company selling picks and shovels for the AI bubble. Of course they're going to drip feed "AI is so awesome guys!" stories on their blog.

If you strip away the hyperbolic statement about compilers and the Empire State Building, it's an internal success anecdote.

Would be interested to hear how all of the self-directed AI decisions worked out after launch. This is where I run into problems with AI. Sometimes it makes product decisions that aren't immediately visible and make no sense and cause serious problems down the road. Also, an analysis of how much time was actually saved by using AI? since it sounds like there was a lot of guidance and testing to make sure what the AI did was correct.

> 2) Isn't it great that we can burn a bunch of dinosaur blood to convince ourselves that we don't need other humans?

God I hate this cynical take. Yes human beings use energy. We should look to generate more energy as that's a sign of wealth. The "energy bad" take is so lazy and ultimately anti-human. And in this case its especially obnoxious because what does "we don't need other humans" even mean.

The whole resource argument against AI is quickly becoming obsolete. Time to move on to a new argument.

not in any way that matters, no. this is a strawman and a really bad one too.

I believe you are projecting your personal misgivings onto the argument actually being made. May be better to write your own rebuttal instead?