Engineering Reads — 2026-05-24#

The Big Idea#

Attempting to build deterministic models of how AI will automate jobs is a category error akin to the failures of early expert systems. Instead of simply eliminating roles, cheap automation often triggers the Jevons paradox—drastically increasing the volume of work while unpredictably shifting the underlying business models that fund it.

Deep Reads#

[Predicting AI job exposure] · Benedict Evans · Source Evans argues that trying to quantify AI’s impact on specific jobs using rigid taxonomies like O*NET is fundamentally impossible. He draws a sharp parallel to the failure of symbolic AI: just as engineers couldn’t manually encode the logical steps for image recognition, we cannot reduce complex knowledge work into a deterministic checklist of automatable tasks. Back-testing past technological shifts reveals massive secondary effects, such as the Jevons paradox, where automating a costly task like financial analysis simply increases the demand for more analysis rather than reducing headcount. Furthermore, we often suffer from a variant of “Gell-Mann Amnesia,” assuming AI will replace consultants or lawyers because it can generate documents, while forgetting that clients pay for trust and strategy, not just the raw artifact. Engineers building AI products should read this to internalize a humbling historical reality: new technology rarely just executes old tasks cheaper; it unlocks entirely new behaviors that break predictive models.