[Naracion]

I agree with you--however, programmers have not become even better paid because society values programmers. They have become better paid because software is a relatively new artefact in human society which has taken the human life by storm, which has made software companies immensely profitable, which meant more companies wanted to create software and attract the people that could help them do it.

As software takes a back seat (or at least a "normal" seat) in society, would we see a normalization of income? Could this be hastened by the development and introduction of tools such as copilot?

Potentially, unless there are new / better things that humans can claim they can provide compared to AI tools. This is the point where I think you and I agree, and I think it's your primary argument in any case (unless I'm mistaken).

[natefinch]

AI can code low level stuff. This one function. This small piece of logic. What it can't do is conceive of how to take a bunch of different functions and put them together to produce an actual product. It can't tell you if you should use postges or mongo. Programmers will always be needed, we'll just move up the stack, and we'll produce more value per hour of our work, justifying our high salaries.

Compare the visible output of someone writing in assembly vs someone writing on top of a modern web framework. Is assembly harder? Yeah. But the web framework is going to give you a usable product in a fraction of the time with way more features. And that's worth more money to the company you work for.

It's always going to be a knowledge worker's job. It's always going to reward experience and creativity and attention to detail. A lot of programming is looking at the world, seeing a gap in what exists, and figuring out what best fits that gap. An AI can't do that. Programming is making 1000 tiny decisions that can't possibly be specified completely by a product manager and need a human to weigh the tradeoffs.

[CRConrad]

> AI can code low level stuff. This one function. This small piece of logic. What it can't do is conceive of how to take a bunch of different functions and put them together to produce an actual product.

Thats what everybody in the chess world said: "AI can decide low level stuff. This one move. This small attack on a rook. What it can't do is conceive of how to take a bunch of different tactics and put them together to produce a game of chess."

...Until Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov.

> It can't tell you if you should use postges or mongo.

Yeah, and then came: "It may be able to play chess, but it can't tell you how to play Go."

Look how that went.