[johnfn]

Your proof-in-pudding test seems to assume that AI is binary -- either it accelerates everyone's development 100x ("let's rewrite every app into bug-free native applications") or nothing ("there hasn't been anything to show for that in years"). I posit reality is somewhere in between the two.

[coldtea]

Considering that "AI will replace nearly all devs" and "AI will give 100x boost" and such we were promised, it makes sense to question this.

After almost all hyped technology is also "somewere between the two" extremes of not doing what it promises at all and doing it. The question is which edge it's closer to.

[eiens]

LLM’s are capable of searching information spaces and generating some outputs that one can use to do their job.

But it’s not taking anyone’s job, ever. People are not bots, a lot of the work they do is tacit and goes well beyond the capabilities and abilities of llm’s.

Many tech firms are essentially mature and are currently using too much labour. This will lead to a natural cycle of lay offs if they cannot figure out projects to allocate the surplus labour. This is normal and healthy - only a deluded economist believes in ‘perfect’ stuff.

[ipaddr]

"it’s not taking anyone’s job, ever"

It has already and that doesn't mean new jobs haven't been created or that those new jobs went to those who lost their jobs.

[johnfn]

In this entire thread of conversation, I never said that LLMs would take people's jobs, and that is not something I believe.