I'm sorry but the framing is disingenuous. All of the jobs taking on heavy losses are also the most expensive to employ. Since they are also the "targets" of AI automation just by framing it with a graph could easily lead to a false conclusion. Yes, that's the target, but we don't yet know if it's like the washing machine - just because it exists does not make us less busy, instead of washing clothes after 4 uses, we're washing after 1.
And similarly the economic outlook is at risk right now, and companies are still shedding CVD overhiring (and many other reasons). AI MAY be having an effect but it's not as large as people are trying to make us believe.
AI does not necessarily make software engineers disappear - it makes it so that they're on the hook to deliver 8 features per week instead of 1.
A news company that has 5 writers won't fire 4 and make the last one use AI to replace them because the risk is another news company will make the decision to keep the 5 all using AI and rip 50x more articles per day and crush the other company to death.
And similarly the economic outlook is at risk right now, and companies are still shedding CVD overhiring (and many other reasons). AI MAY be having an effect but it's not as large as people are trying to make us believe.
AI does not necessarily make software engineers disappear - it makes it so that they're on the hook to deliver 8 features per week instead of 1.
A news company that has 5 writers won't fire 4 and make the last one use AI to replace them because the risk is another news company will make the decision to keep the 5 all using AI and rip 50x more articles per day and crush the other company to death.