Would you say the same about any other tool, like where is the revenue caused by Susan in accounting having a computer, shouldn't we take away her computer if she can't prove a benefit?
After 1T in spend, it's still not clear that AIs will beat out a $30k secretary.
Also, your link has nothing to do with computers.
The link talks directly about the disconnect between the supposed productivity benefits of a technology and the measured productivity benefits of it in practice. And provides historical context about why the “obvious” benefits of a computer did not materialize when it was introduced; business and their processes had to be rebuilt around the computer before real gains were seen.
It's a structural deficiency in the way they work that can't just be handwaived away.
There are new architectures, paper, and harnesses coming out weekly that improve performance, accuracy, and/or performance efficiency.
Whether they can do better or not than a secretary is a poorly defined metric. But by objective metric they are already producing less buggy code than $30k developers, and doing it faster.
But by objective metric they are already producing less buggy code than $30k developers, and doing it faster.
That's like bragging that a $1 trillion tank can go faster than a cheap budget car. For $1 trillion being slightly better isn't good enough.
If you consider the change in what’s possible in June 2026 vs 2025 (to say nothing of 2024) “incremental” than you and I are living in different realities and I don’t know what to tell you.