People have objected to training their replacements since forever. Younger people, foreigners, now machines. What else is new?

I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement. But I don't think the decision makes much of a difference one way or another in the grand scheme of things.

> You may ask: Why would anyone agree to train an AI model in the very skills they took years to acquire?

If they could actually do it, I would be all over it! If you can save humanity from having to spend years acquiring these skills and judgements, they can do something else with their lives.

They could, but will they get the chance to?

My most commercially valuable skills - software wrangling, figuring out what went wrong, explaining how to do things in software - are rapidly getting obsoleted by agents. But I'm not too sad about it, because honestly? I hated a lot of that work. Endless frustration with finding out what went wrong, sometimes in an architecture you argued strongly against, etc. Watching the AI agent "thinking" scroll by and seeing it get "frustrated" instead of me, is honestly a relief. But what is it going to do for my career, middle-term?

I have a few years of head start on most people on using many forms of AI, but who knows what's that going to be worth?

Just like how the car gave us back so many more hours to spend actually living instead of working. And the washing machine. And the computer. And the Internet.

> I don't think you are under any moral or ethical obligation to train your replacement.

Depending on where you live, there might not even be a legal obligation.

> they can do something else with their lives.

Let them eat cake.

I don't want to attack your good faith in humanity, so I will ask another way - if a system was reliant on workers, what reason would there be for those workers to exist , after their work became automated?

> If you can save humanity from having to spend years acquiring these skills and judgements, they can do something else with their lives.

In theory, yes. In practice, no. Not until we replace our entire socioeconomic system. As-is, the only reason most people can extract an existence from capital is capital's dependence on labor.

Break that dependence and the entire thing breaks, capital becomes a self-sustaining flywheel towards feudalism and everyone who currently depends on labor for their survival loses the foundation of their existence.

Only once we fundamentally change ownership structures can we work towards your vision. Until then, it is a false piper to dystopia.