[finnjohnsen2]

I like this. This is an accurate state of AI at this very moment for me. The LLM is (just) a tool which is making me "amplified" for coding and certain tasks.

I will worry about developers being completely replaced when I see something resembling it. Enough people worry about that (or say it to amp stock prices) -- and they like to tell everyone about this future too. I just don't see it.

[DrewADesign]

Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.

[finnjohnsen2]

I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s** done.

Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second.

I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know the future anyway.

[DrewADesign]

In fact, there isn’t infinite demand for software. Especially not for all kinds of software.

And if corporate wealth means people get paid more, why are companies that are making more money than ever laying off so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to use them to meet the inexhaustible demand for software?

[jimbokun]

I do wonder though if we have about enough (or too much) software.

I hear people complaining about software being forced on them to do things they did just fine without software before, than people complaining about software they want that doesn’t exist.

[dasil003]

Yeah I think being annoyed by software is far more prevalent than wishing for more software. That said, I think there is still a lot of room for software growth as long as it's solving real problems and doesn't get in people's way. What I'm not sure about is what will the net effect of AI be overall when the dust settles.

On one hand it is very empowering to individuals, and many of those individuals will be able to achieve grander visions with less compromise and design-by-committee. On the other hand, it also enables an unprecedented level of slop that will certainly dilute the quality of software overall. What will be the dominant effect?

[kiba]

Jevon's paradox means this is untrue because it means more work not less.

[jimbokun]

Jevon’s Paradox is an important observation but I don’t think it’s an immutable law of the universe,

[topocite]

It is a 19th century economic observation around the use of coal.

It is like saying the PDF is going to be good for librarian jobs because people will read more. It is stupid. It completely breaks down because of substitution.

Farming is the most obvious comparison to me in this. Yes, there will be more food than ever before, the farmer that survives will be better off than before by a lot but to believe the automation of farming tasks by machines leads to more farm jobs is completely absurd.

[inglor_cz]

Hm. More of what? Functionality, security, performance?

Current software is often buggy because the pressure to ship is just too high. If AI can fix some loose threads within, the overall quality grows.

Personally, I would welcome a massive deployment of AI to root out various zero-days from widespread libraries.

But we may instead get a larger quantity of even more buggy software.

[emp17344]

This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.

[DrewADesign]

That’s not basic economics. Basic economics says that salaries are determined by the demand for labor vs the supply of labor. With more efficiency, each worker does more labor, so you need fewer people to accomplish the same thing. So unless the demand for their product increases around the same rate as productivity increases, companies will employ fewer people. Since the market for products is not infinite, you only need as much labor as you require to meet the demand for your product.

Companies that are doing better than ever are laying people off by the shipload, not giving people raises for a job well done.

[gorjusborg]

Well, that depends on whether the technology requires expertise that is rare and/or hard to acquire.

I'd say that using AI tools effectively to create software systems is in that class currently, but it isn't necessarily always going to be the case.

[topocite]

You obviously haven't thought about economics much at all to say something this simplistic.

There are so many counter examples of this being wrong that it is not even worth bothering.

I love economics, but it is largely a field based around half truths and intellectual fraud. It is actually why it is an interesting subject to study.

[emp17344]

Denial of economic truths is denial of science. Not sure what to tell you. What parts do you reject?

[DrewADesign]

Like denying that more efficiency without a commensurate increase in product demand means the demand for labor goes down, which means fewer jobs, and lower salaries? You don’t pay people what they’re actually worth, you pay people what they’ll work for. Requesting more money because you’re making the company more money is only viable if there aren’t qualified people lining up for the chance to take your role. Even without more money, well-paid people tend to regrettably get laid off in those circumstances.

[jimbokun]

Nah, most of it just gets returned to capital holders.

[cogman10]

The more likely outcome is that fewer devs will be hired as fewer devs will be needed to accomplish the same amount of output.

[HPsquared]

The old shrinking markets aka lump of labour fallacy. It's a bit like dreaming of that mythical day, when all of the work will be done.

[cogman10]

No it's not that.

Tell me, when was the last time you visited your shoe cobbler? How about your travel agent? Have you chatted with your phone operator recently?

The lump labour fallacy says it's a fallacy that automation reduces the net amount of human labor, importantly, across all industries. It does not say that automation won't eliminate or reduce jobs in specific industries.

It's an argument that jobs lost to automation aren't a big deal because there's always work somewhere else but not necessarily in the job that was automated away.

[imiric]

Jobs are replaced when new technology is able to produce an equivalent or better product that meets the demand, cheaper, faster, more reliably, etc. There is no evidence that the current generation of "AI" tools can do that for software.

There is a whole lot of marketing propping up the valuations of "AI" companies, a large influx of new users pumping out supremely shoddy software, and a split in a minority of users who either report a boost in productivity or little to no practical benefits from using these tools. The result of all this momentum is arguably net negative for the industry and the world.

This is in no way comparable to changes in the footwear, travel, and telecom industries.

[danny_codes]

I was with you till like a month ago. Now I’m not so sure..

[9rx]

Current generation "AI" has already largely solved cheaper, faster, and more reliable. But it hasn't figured out how to curb demand. So far, the more software we build, the more people want even more software. Much like is told in the lump of labor fallacy, it appears that there is no end to finding productive uses for software. And certainly that has been the "common wisdom" for at least the last couple of decades; that whole "software is eating the world" thing.

What changed in the last month that has you thinking that a demand wall is a real possibility?

[NewEntryHN]

This implication completely depends on the elasticity (or lack thereof) of demand for software. When marginal profit from additional output exceeds labor cost savings, firms expand rather than shrink.

[slopinthebag]

When computers came onto the market and could automate a large percentage of office jobs, what happened to the job market for office jobs?

[cogman10]

They changed, significantly.

We lost the pneumatic tube [1] maintenance crew. Secretarial work nearly went away. A huge number of bookkeepers in the banking industry lost their jobs. The job a typist was eliminated/merged into everyone else's job. The job of a "computer" (someone that does computations) was eliminated.

What we ended up with was primarily a bunch of customer service, marketing, and sales workers.

There was never a "office worker" job. But there were a lot of jobs under the umbrella of "office work" that were fundamentally changed and, crucially, your experience in those fields didn't necessarily translate over to the new jobs created.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qman4N3Waw4

[slopinthebag]

I expect something like this will happen to some degree, although not to the extent of what happened with computers.

But the point is that we didn't just lose all of those jobs.

[cogman10]

Right, and my point is that specific jobs, like the job of a dev, were eliminate or significantly curtailed.

New jobs may be waiting for us on the other side of this, but my job, the job of a dev, is specifically under threat with no guarantee that the experience I gained as a dev will translate into a new market.

[slopinthebag]

I think as a dev if you're just gluing API's together or something akin to that, similar to the office jobs that got replaced, you might be in trouble, but tbh we should have automated that stuff before we got AI. It's kind of a shame it may be automated by something not deterministic tho.

But like, if we're talking about all dev jobs being replaced then we're also talking about most if not all knowledge work being automated, which would probably result in a fundamental restructuring of society. I don't see that happening anytime soon, and if it does happen it's probably impossible to predict or prepare for anyways. Besides maybe storing rations and purchasing property in the wilderness just in case.