The possible function of this report, as with the truck drivers, was to provide justification to companies to reduce the wages of the workers in the report. It provides a way to point the finger at a looming "threat" that they'll be replaced, so don't demand increases in wages. This is keeping with the value that McKinsey provides to companies.

You know what they say about the first 90% taking up 90% of the development time and the last 10% taking up 90% of the development time. That is likely what we are seeing with current AI efforts. They get amazingly close yet aren't good enough to be relied upon.

Yes.

My point isn’t really to comment on the specific developments in AI itself, but to assert that McKinsey has no special insight on the topic.

I'm guessing that you didn't mean to end up with 180% of development time, but that does seem about right when it comes to the software development projects that I've been part of. I also think you're correct that despite the impressive recent advances in AI, the remaining effort may still be enormous.

The 180% is purposeful (supposed to be humorous)! See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninety%E2%80%93ninety_rule

Edit: though I guess, in a sense, nobody means to put him 180% of planned effort

You know, we could save a lot on consultants if we had LLMs write the BS reports.

I am still waiting for cashiers to go out of work let alone truck drivers.