Great read. It's the doorman fallacy from the doorman's perspective. If a doorman is replaced by an automated door, you miss out on the intangibles the doorman provides like security, customer triage/support, and similar.

AI used in a framework of human augmentation generally gets that for free. Used under the mistaken notion that humans can be easily replaced by AI gets you to the big complaints here.

(These are just my personal read on the topic -- the market is in AI frenzy where AI valuations are disconnected from productive capacity -- heavy on my mind and looking to get some writings out on the topic soon).

I was gonna say, how is it a fallacy, the doorman is awesome. But it turns out the fallacy was getting rid of him.

I argue this also applies with beauty. We got rid of that, also saying it was unnecessary. The result is sad.