People who claim that AI isn't good enough to replace human workers are missing the point
I often hear people (on both sides of the debate) claim that AI can't actually replace human jobs because what it produces is terrible. They're not wrong, but that's not the point.
It doesn't matter if someone is an incredible graphic designer who's received only glowing reviews at their job. Investors and company executives don't care if the AI produces something that's worse quality than what the human graphic designer can produce, because the only thing they care about is increasing their short-term profits. That's it. So if there's even the *smallest* chance that laying off x% of their workforce will save the company any amount of money at all, they will do that. They are fully aware that there is a chance that the AI will fail and they will have to spend a lot of money to fix its mistakes (and we're already seeing this play out). They do not care, however, because the chance that it *will* save them money carries more weight to them than the chance that they will lose money on it.
My theory is that the cycle of mass layoffs, then re-hiring to train the AI and fix its mistakes, then mass layoffs, then re-hiring, etc. will continue until the AI actually is "good enough" to be a long-term/permanent replacement for human labor. (Of course, the question at that point is, will it ever *actually* be capable of not requiring humans to come in and fix it, but that's a whole other topic that I'm not educated enough to speak on.)