In the 1994 X-Files episode “Duane Barry,” a man takes people hostage in a travel agency. Back then, the setting was a mundane backdrop for a sci-fi thriller. Watching it today, it feels like a relic from another world.
People built careers in these businesses, booking flights and planning vacations. Then the internet arrived, and services like Expedia and Priceline let customers handle those tasks themselves. By 2007, U.S. travel agencies employed nearly 40% fewer workers than at their dot-com peak. By 2011, more than half the jobs were gone.
If that sounds like a catastrophe, ask yourself: Where was the outrage?
We didn’t boycott online booking to protect travel agents. We embraced the convenience, just as we embraced alternatives to Blockbuster and Tower Records. When the new tools suited us, preserving the old jobs wasn’t much of a priority.
This is why I question some of the outrage over AI destroying livelihoods. The losses can be real, but our concern for displaced workers has often competed with our appetite for convenience. Before declaring THIS disruption unacceptable, we might examine our enthusiasm for the previous ones. What makes this change different, and how much of our reaction depends on whose work is now exposed?
Eugene Schwartz advised working with the larger forces of the market, and I embraced that advice within my first week of testing AI.
The hours I’d spent before that, studying copywriting and the money I’d invested in mentors, hiring copywriters, studying books, and courses gave me a practical advantage. It trained my eye to recognize when AI produces persuasive copy and when it merely produces a lot of words. I could put the tool to work immediately because I knew what to ask for and which results to use.
RW
.
.
.