Critics of AI-driven economic collapse argue these scenarios wrongly assume a static economy. Historically, massive productivity gains from technology have lowered costs, expanded markets, and created entirely new industries and forms of consumption, rather than just eliminating jobs.

Counterintuitively, making a task cheaper and easier with AI doesn't just eliminate jobs; it drastically increases the overall demand for that task. Just as Excel created more accountants, AI's efficiencies will lead to an explosion in the volume of work, creating new roles and opportunities.

Pessimism about AI-driven job losses overlooks historical precedent. The transition from an agricultural to an industrial economy caused massive job displacement but ultimately created far more new jobs. Similarly, AI will likely generate new, currently unimaginable roles and industries.

The argument that AI will cause mass unemployment relies on the 'lump of labor fallacy'—the mistaken belief there is a finite amount of work. Historically, technology has always created new jobs and roles, even as it displaces old ones, a pattern likely to repeat with AI.

Like the internet and mobile, AI will automate many jobs. However, this automation historically unlocks new types of work that don't exist yet. While there's short-term frictional pain, the long-term trend repeated over 200 years is job creation and increased prosperity.

The narrative of AI destroying jobs misses a key point: AI allows companies to 'hire software for a dollar' for tasks that were never economical to assign to humans. This will unlock new services and expand the economy, creating demand in areas that previously didn't exist.

Current fears that AI will eliminate all jobs are not new, mirroring panics during the mainframe and PC eras. Historically, these technologies drove massive productivity gains and created new industries rather than destroying the workforce, suggesting a similar outcome for AI.

The panic-inducing Citrini paper, which caused a market sell-off, assumes a static economy where AI only destroys jobs. It completely ignores historical precedents where new efficiencies unlock unforeseen demand and create entirely new industries, a concept similar to the Jevons paradox.

The narrative that AI will eliminate jobs mirrors identical fears during the mainframe revolution of the 1960s and the PC revolution of the 1980s. Historically, such technologies have always increased human productivity and created more, higher-value jobs. The "this time is different" argument has consistently been proven wrong.