It&#x27;s not even speculation: your point has tons of evidence backing it. I remember when I did AI that &quot;automatic programming&quot; was something we wanted. My research led to a project called The Programmer&#x27;s Apprentice from MIT. The idea, since auto prog wasn&#x27;t working, was a more limited A.I. that became an extension of programmer&#x27;s mind to automate some work, analyse others, optimize even more, and so on. Not sure where that went but a Java programmer&#x27;s explanation of NetBeans was deja vu. ;) A programmer with a text editor vs one with modern tools (I.A. + A.I.) is a game-changing difference that did effectively increase intelligence of the work.<p>Likewise, people not so smart with numbers had calculators. People needing conversions have Google and Frick. There&#x27;s financial and accounting packages that can convert lots of numerical assessments into simpler forms to aid the user&#x27;s understanding. ERP and BPM, <i>done right</i>, let a person ignore inconsequential details to focus on high-level aspects of business operation. Wikipedia for summaries + Google for details and verification let one amass expertise in a new domain rapidly.<p>And so on and so forth. Intelligence Augmentation and Artificial Intelligence both have proven value. Both are used today. So, we can keep both. :)