The biggest difference in the past (i.e. industrial revolution) was that a human was still required when technology improved and the increased output only occurred from that tech when workers were skilled up to use it appropriately. Also training more workers in these new skills meant even more output and a potential edge against your competitors as that multiplier would carry to workers trained. Each worker gives you more productivity but you still need more workers to scale output. This obviously results an "arms-race" mentality from employers to train staff to fill the gap to take the lead against competitors. It also adds bargaining power to the skilled worker - if they strike instead of not producing that multiplier/leverage works against the employer as they miss out on more output than if an untrained worker strikes. They may even have to shut down their factory or whatever. Leverage and worker productivity work both ways for the employer; it's one of the big reasons cited for the rise of worker unions and arguably the rise of the middle class since then.

The first wave was all about making people more efficient (higher output multipliers for effort); the next wave may very well make people redundant in the economic production equation. If one person is all that's required to scale infinitely (O(1)) OR people aren't required once the capital is built the share of gains to workers IMO erode substantially and mainly accrue to capital holders. Particularly if those gains result in a concentration of market power to one company.