That's just part of the training period, much like training a new employee. Once it's properly setup, it runs pretty exceptionally rather consistently.

The CEO that owns the AI that makes other AI will be making bank. That profit won't disappear for them, it's just more incentive to do so.

Development jobs already exist, those are some of the "new jobs" of the internet age, you aren't going to see a huge uptick in those jobs as AI rolls out, they already are being done. We already have jobs built around making AI development faster too.

AI is already changing the culture. The recommendation algorithms online are run by AI. Future planning focuses majorly on AI. AI runs stock market trading for many firms. There are AI being developed to identify diseases that are already as good or better than the best doctors (one of the areas where they won't replace, but doctors will have their role changed, with traits around human interactions becoming significantly more important than any diagnostic capabilities); this tech is even already being used in places they don't have enough doctors.

As for lawyers, ChatGPT won't replace them, it's not meant to, but there IS a Lawyer AI that was designed to, and it's already started; Lawyers thinking they are irreplaceable is their hubris, not a reflection of AI (people once said machines would never replace railroad track laying). Likewise the AI art can just be trained on free datasets, and those issues go away - they've seen the model already works, retraining it isn't a real challenge. Students SHOULD get charged for plagiarism for using ChatGPT, but it's not easy to catch it unless they suddenly change mid semester, and that doesn't take away from the myriad of opportunities it unlocks for non-students. Self driving cars are really not that fallible, particularly the frontrunner (when was the last time you heard an issue with Waymo?); In non-inclement weather they are already exceptional and loads better than humans. When an AI crashes you hear about it because it's a big deal, they don't happen that often. There are thousands of car accidents with humans behind the wheel every single day, we don't hear about them because they are common. And while there are fewer self driving cars, they aren't outnumbered by that magnitude.

The automobile is a great example of AI replacing instead of supplementing; not for the human drivers (still needed taxi drivers, still needed semi drivers) but for the horse, because the automobile completely automated the need for horses - and they did not get shifted to new roles, they got massively downsized, relegated to recreation rather than productivity.

While the sector did pop up, the number of employed went down. Looking at the number of people apple or Google employ, versus what like sears and GM did during their hay day, it's drastically lower.

The biggest difference is most of the automations of the past just shifted the working from doing the hard work to using the automation to do the hard work, a mostly neutral transition. Now significant portions of automation completely replace the worker, needing no human behind the wheel, but instead maintenance, which is multiple robots and thus multiple jobs per human, and builders/developers, which for the most part are one and done per job, thus not creating a sustainable job source.

This is not a bad thing, but the fundamental "work to live" needs to change, as so much of what needs to be done for society to function will shift to robotics and automation with very little oversight.

We have robots that can do both of those. Stocking shelves may still have some work to do to be more generalized and safe around customers, but it already exists.

Except we have evidence of countries who have already gone green. And even if you argue that solar and wind have downtimes, even ignoring energy storing options, a grid that is mostly renewable with pockets of less green resources to compensate is a massive improvement over what we have.