[riffraff]

I'm with you at the "bargaining" phase of AI grief (sure AI is useful but it won't replace me!).

I think my reasoning is you still need a tech person to translate from feature to architecture. AI can do both but not everyone knows they need the latter.

[cushycush]

Of course but unfortunately it reduces the amount of jobs 100x or more. You don’t need 30 software developers at a startup anymore. You just need one.

[PsylentKnight]

This sounds like the lump of labor fallacy

It seems almost certain to me that AI is going to increase the surface area of what it’s possible for programs to do and therefore massively induce demand for more programs

I think the part that remains to be seen is whether a sufficient percent of that new work will be done by humans such that overall demand for the humans doesn’t collapse

Personally I think us humans will be ok for at least a few more years

[tavavex]

> It seems almost certain to me that AI is going to increase the surface area of what it’s possible for programs to do and therefore massively induce demand for more programs

Have we seen any of that yet? If anything, the most popular modern projects out there are all AI tooling, basically recursive software to help with using AI. Have you seen any truly novel software that solves new problems? Even before AI, I've been worried that most of the problems that were possible and viable to solve have run dry, leading to tech chasing hype and the next big thing over practical issues that have already been scooped up by someone else. What new problems have been added?

[riffraff]

I think it won't reduce jobs by 100x but yes, some jobs will be lost.

I think it's right to put effort towards necessary regulatory and political changes, but there's no point in trying to deny the change.

[slopinthebag]

That just means you can have 30x more startups!