It's probably better to look at a group from outside. Every company of any size seems to accumulate at least some people that could be replaced with a small shell script. Where I work there are a few people that seem so questionable at their job (even though most are good) I wonder how they keep their positions. I'd rather work with AI for the rest of my life then have to deal with them again.

You can alter a work environment to allow some of those people to thrive (though I'm not naive enough to think that all of them will). But once somebody suited to their environment becomes convinced that their success is totally due to their own overwhelming greatness, they become impossible to work with.

I would rather work in an office entirely staffed by well-meaning people struggling at their jobs than a single person like you.

Whether I'm in the 30% or not isn't the core issue, is it? The point is about the impact AI will have based on existing work ethics. Many of us have seen colleagues who barely contribute, and AI is a tool that will either be leveraged for growth by the engaged or used as another crutch by those already disengaged.

I believe AI is going to degrade everybody's work ethic, regardless of current performance. I don't think it's going to act like some kind of Calibration Panel where the bottom performers are knocked out by AI, leaving the higher performers to keep cruising along confident in their skills. I believe it will make everybody worse.