Your first article seems to start with a premise that laying off workers, whose jobs magically no longer need doing, and hiring AI focused workers means AI didn’t replace anyone. Your second article really doesn’t seem to address the subject beyond mostly talking about “overhyped” versions of conversations. The third article uses the fact that people who are exposed to AI aren’t entirely unemployed (despite rising unemployment across sectors and decreasing pay) and as such is proof a job apocalypse is unlikely. You follow up with yet another article in a similar vein.
Are you missing the pattern here?
Which of these articles and which part specifically do you believe supports the statement “NO ONE” is losing their job due to AI? Zero. Not a single one?
Okay, if not that, are you trying to refute my statement that automation is increasing across sectors? Which one of your articles refutes this statement categorically? Is it that you’re refuting AI is used in or to implement automations? Are you refuting that people have lost jobs to automations? Are you refuting that an AI does not need to replace an ENTIRE job in order to cause someone to lose their job or for a job to be replaced with a lesser paying job?
I’m not clear on how you think what you have provided is actually contextually relevant to the words I actually wrote, much less how I must have a “problem” because of it.