You might have missed a key element from the article itself. There are three versions of the same argument: the first by the author, the second by ChatGPT as an argument in support of the statement:
"I’ve been reluctant to try ChatGPT. Today I got over that reluctance. Now I understand why I was reluctant. The value of 90% of my skills just dropped to $0. The leverage for the remaining 10% went up 1000x. I need to recalibrate."
and the third is ChatGPT arguing against that same statement. As present, it's pretty clear which of the three is the most fun to read.
"I’ve been reluctant to try ChatGPT. Today I got over that reluctance. Now I understand why I was reluctant. The value of 90% of my skills just dropped to $0. The leverage for the remaining 10% went up 1000x. I need to recalibrate."
and the third is ChatGPT arguing against that same statement. As present, it's pretty clear which of the three is the most fun to read.