[funnyfoobar]

Yes, there will be always someone who is needed to program stuff. Totally agree with that.

But my question is "how many of those will be needed", because I am not saying that programmers are not needed.

When less numbers are needed, there will be so much competition in finding those jobs, esentially would also mean not able to find the work, as there will be always someone who would be willing to the job at lower wage and come to work with more youthful energy.

Just speaking out loud.

[satvikpendem]

Look up induced demand. As it gets easier, more software gets created, not less.

[bruce511]

I've had a long career, and seen a number of systemic changes.

I've lived through two software "explosions" where minimal skills lead to large output. The first was web sites and the second was mobile.

Web sites are (even now) pretty easy. In the late 90's though, and early 2000's there was tremendous demand for web site creation. (Every business everywhere suddenly needed a web presence.) This lead to a massive surge in building-web-site training. No time for 3 year degree, barely time for 90 days of "click here, drag that".

So there was this huge percentage of "programmers" that had a very shallow skill set. When the bubble burst it was this group that bore the brunt.

Fast forward to 2007, and mobile apps become a "thing". Same pattern evolves, fast training, shallow understanding, apps do very little (most of the heavy lifting, if it exists at all, is on the backend.) Not a lot of time spent on UI or app flow etc.

This time around the work is also likely to be done offshore. Turns out simple skills can be taught anywhere, tiny programs can be built anywhere.

Worse, management typically didn't understand the importance of foundations like good database design, coherent code, forward thinking, maintainence etc. Programs are 10% creation, 90% maintainence (adding stuff, fixing stuff etc.) From a management point of view (and indeed from those swathes of shallow practioners) the only goal is "it works."

AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient. And just like before it first replaces people who themselves have only shallow skills; who see "coding" as the goal of their job.

We are far from the end of this cycle, and who knows where it will go, but yes, those with shallow skills are likely to be first on the chopping block.

Those with better foundations (a better understanding of good and bad, perhaps with a deeper education, or deeper experience) and the ability to communicate that value to management are positioned well.

In other words, yes the demand for "lite" developers will implode. But at the same time demand for quality devs, who can tell good from bad (design, code, ui etc) goes up.

If you are a young graduate, you're going to be light on experience. If you're and older person, but had very shallow (or no) training you're easily replaced. If you think development is code, you're not gonna do well.

In truth development is not about code (and never has been). It's about all the processes that lead up to the code. Where possible (even at college level) try and focus on upskilling on "big picture" - understanding the needs of a business, the needs of the customer, the architecture and design that results in "good" or "bad".

AI is a tool. It's important to understand when it's doing good, but also when it's doing bad.

[exitb]

> AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient.

That’s not the whole story and certainly not the core concern, which is more about developers who already have deep experience, using AI to multiply their output.

[578_Observer]

Spot on. History doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.

You've seen the "Dot-com" and "Mobile" cycles. This "AI cycle" feels faster, but the trap is the same: Mistaking Access for Mastery.

In Japanese martial arts, we have "Shuhari" (Obey, Digress, Separate). AI gives everyone a shortcut to the final stage ("Look, I made an app!"), skipping the painful "Obey" stage where you learn why things break.

As you said, when the bubble bursts, only those who understand the "Foundation" (database design, consistency) will remain standing. The tools change, but the physics of complexity do not.