why would it put you out of job? Wouldn't it just become one of the tools you use?
These correlations do hold for technical fields, but logically there should be a point beyond which productivity gains outpace, demand growth / demand could even stop growing. One should either retool to solve a newer problem before this point is reached, or hope that the point is not reached in the span of their career.
Oil rig builders for example - manufacturing has been increasingly automated, but the demand for oil rig building has grown consistently. But they should probably look into solving other problems given that demand is shifting.
The limiting factor on drug approval is clinical trials. Once every living person is enrolled in a clinical trial, we will have hit the maximum rate at which humanity can produce new drugs.
That might be more than 10x the current rate, but probably less than 1000x.
I think we have a warped idea of that, because of the practice of looking for a barely "statistically significant" effect from a substance that isn't really understood.
If you have something that just eradicates a disease immediately, because you really understand what you are doing, you don't need very many tests to confirm it works.
This is basically the theory around modern industrial revolution - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Efficiency increases demand more than the efficiency saves.
You could argue that labour does not follow that, but it is more about the technology improving rather than disrupting.
That's not some sort of natural law.
People latched on to this hypothetical situation and keep elevating its universality.
It's just a thing that can happen and may or may not in a given instance.