I'm still interested to hear her opinion as well but the point in the article would still be made, because if for some reason she had more mobility at the company, I could just imagine another scenario where the employee didn't.
The author leaves it open as to what she might to next, but at a minimum it would be a huge disappointment to be laid off due to AI.
Why? Either he's right about GPT or he's wrong, and if he's right (which I think he is) and she disagrees, then she's probably just in denial, like so many HNers who aren't worried about their job, let alone worried about protecting themselves from the massive societal disruption this tech is likely to usher in.
I think his position on this would be a lot more credible if he presented her own opinions.
So, in a scenario where LLM automates her job, she will be unemployed along with 10 with the same job as her, and the "creative" job will go to someone who did her degree/s from an IIT.
This is another fallacy when it comes to AI-replacements of jobs.
AI will do the menial, repeating job and only the interesting, creative, hard jobs will be left for humans. What's the twist is that you WON'T be the human with that job.
You will be unemployed or in a UBI or your parents' basement eating Ramen, and that job will be done by an MIT gold medalist or a Math Olympiad medalist.
Along these lines I recommend the book The Second Machine Age: Work, Progress, and Prosperity in a Time of Brilliant Technologies.
You've outlined the pessimistic case.
Priya has qualifications in biotechnology. She currently spends her time doing work that sounds quite repetitive.
If AI tools can help accelerate that work, is there a more optimistic scenario where she gets to do different, related work that isn't automatable?
(I personally really hope the pessimistic case isn't what happens here, and in so many other similar situations. I understand and share your concern!)