A thing I imagine some people miss about near-term non-X-risk impacts of gippities: If 95% of some task is automatable, that doesn't necessarily mean you can speed it up 20x using automation. That may sound strange, but consider this: there's a lot of hidden value in humans having context loaded up. If the non-automatable 5% is really important, then you still want the human doing that 5% well. For the human to do it well, the human may have to have deeply reviewed many parts of the 95%. For example, even if some judge's ruling will only directly warrant some obvious automated next response, that doesn't mean the human can just skip reading the ruling; some aspects of it may inform the deeper legal strategy. Or something. Similarly, if the human needs to make many of the deepest architectural choices in a big software project, the human may have to be well familiar with the constraints of many specific elements of the project, even of the immediate functionality of those elements could easily be implemented by gippity coding.

(None of this strongly implies there won't be some huge effects from gippities, and none of this bears much on actual AGI.)