[larryliu]

Rather than "computer" science, CS is actually "the science of problem solving"

Traditional engineering: you work on one field for X years to become a specialized expert of that field. The industry employs thousands of these "specialists" solving similar problems over and over.

CS/IT: you worked on one field for X years, codified your know how know why in a piece of software/algorithm/library, the field became so mature that minimum wage high schoolers can use your creations. You move on into the next highly demanded blue sea.

Needless to say which industry has higher productivity that could translate to higher income.

[visarga]

IT has been automating its lunch away for decades and now even more people work in IT. A paradox. There's no field more cannibalistic than IT. On top of it, most software is open source and yet salaries are high. Apparently making so much of our field free was not a disaster, another paradox. More recently, even AI is doing the same trick - years of task specific work replaced with a prompt and two examples executed by a huge model. No large training dataset needed. That's why we need even more people deploying it now, because it can solve so many tasks previously too difficult to even attempt.

[zwkrt]

I know you use the term 'paradox' loosely, but all you are saying is investments pay off, which is hardly a paradox!

[visarga]

The paradox is that automation didn't render us jobless.

[astrange]

That's not a paradox. The actual confusing thing is that people believe automation will make them jobless, despite economists not believing this happens, and "rich people fire everyone and replace them with computers" being the plot of Atlas Shrugged rather than a real life scenario.

Jobs come from comparative advantage and demand; demand is infinite and it's not possible for a worker to not have comparative advantage at something, even if it's niche.