[solumunus]

It’s not meaningless because AGI = genuinely being able to replace humans in almost any job. Sure, AI is getting better at stuff that humans direct it to do, but the fact that a human is required in the loop is super meaningful.

[cwbuilds]

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think it will always be used as a tool however smart it gets.

In software, it hasn't replaced all the software engineers (even though it's better and faster than us), it's just meant that we now have more leverage.

We can write more code and work on more projects than ever. I don't see why we would suddenly stop using it like that?

[overgard]

"AI babysitter" sounds more like a minimum wage job, not a career path. Outsourcing your primary skill to a machine creates less leverage. I'm convinced this is why CEO's love it -- even though you can't replace software devs, you can hold an axe over their head with the threat.

[solumunus]

Why do you think you would have a choice? It’s up to the business owner if they want to spend money on AGI rather than hire you, if the AGI is more effective per $ they will choose that.