Other way round, right?
Humans (labor) are different from horses (capital) because 1. they actively participate in work, ie, they don't just literally do what you tell them 2. they actually signed up to work, whereas horses don't care. And 3. if you give them money, they'll also become your customers. Though, I don't know if that's a major factor for employers, even if there is that Henry Ford anecdote.
ATMs are a good example here because there are more bank tellers now than before ATMs were invented. (see Jevons' paradox)
There are some jobs where labor needs to care. Most tech jobs, for example. But there are lots of jobs, especially temp ones, that are about throwing as many bodies as you can afford at a problem, and don't ask questions or try to do it smarter. So 1 is actually a detriment in those kinds of jobs.
To point 3, Henry Ford aside, if businesses really wanted employees to be able to afford their goods, they'd stop offshoring jobs!
ATMs put bank tellers out of work. There do happen to be more bank tellers now than before because there are more bank customers needing more bank services, but my bank only needs X tellers at at time vs X+1 or 2 or 3, and they don't hire any for 24 hours services. It's a bit hard to see, because the number of tellers is higher now than before, but the question is how many more tellers would there be without said machines?
Hiring AIs to do something is extremely expensive. You're basically setting a warehouse of GPUs on fire.
Anyway, if it was true total factor productivity would be exploding, but it's actually kinda underperforming. (And automation almost always causes increased employment.)