[tsss]

It's not awesome, not for us. 30% productivity gain would be enormous. Just imagine 30% of developers losing their jobs, in addition to outsourcing and all the new graduates flooding out of colleges after CS has been hyped so much in the recent years.

[sosborn]

I really doubt that 30% productivity gain would result in 30% developers losing their jobs. Believing this would require an assumption that businesses and economies will never grow.

[jjmarr]

It also doesn't mathematically make any sense. If you now have 130% developer capacity, then the percentage of developers you need to keep is `x` defined by 130%*x = 100%, x ≈ 76.9% implying you'd lay off about 23.1% of developers.

Percentage increases are not the same as percentage losses.

[sarchertech]

Do you know how many 30% productivity gains I’ve seen over the last 25 years? How many people before me saw in the 25 years before that?

[OakNinja]

Good tooling, high level languages, faster computers and sane standards also enabled enormous productivity gains. I predict very few positions lost to LLM's, rather I'd say that just with any technical "revolution" we'll just set a new baseline for productivity, get rid of some bottlenecks, and have a new situation where we need even more engineers to maintain upkeep.

Most jobs lost to AI is just companies that want / need to lay people off and shareholders like "Replaced 30% of our workforce with AI" more than any other conceivable reason.

[re-thc]

> It's not awesome, not for us.

Depends on where you stand. Maybe leet code won't be a common thing (can be solved with AI), maybe they'll look for different skills, etc.

If losing 30% means hiring the right people for the job you might have better chances. For a long time these were never aligned properly.

[Bombthecat]

And? Nothing you can do against it.

IT and coding was a good carrier for a long time, but times are changing.