It's based on the last few years of messaging. They've consistently said AI will do X, Y, and Z, and it ends up doing each of those so poorly that you need pretty much the same staff to babysit the AI. I think it's actually a net-negative in terms of productivity for technical work because you end up having to go over the output extremely carefully to make sure its correct, whereas you'd have some level of trust with a human employee.

AI certainly has a place in a technical workflow, but it's nowhere close to replacing human workers, at least not right now. It'll keep eating at the fringes for the next 5 years minimum, if not indefinitely, and I think the net result will be making human workers more productive, not replacing human workers. And the more productive we are per person, the more valuable that person is, and the more work gets generated.