[dbdr]

You are assuming an infinite productivity boost, i.e. that no programmers at all are needed to make programs.

A more realistic scenario is that programmers are still needed in the foreseeable future (for some definition a what a programmer is, even if it's "understands software enough to be able to write good prompts and judge the results"). So the question is how the productivity boost compares to the increase in the amount of software being made.

[Sammi]

Yes ai + programmer are the resource.

Ai won't work on it's own until we get agi.

[jackdoe]

yes, I assume we will have the 'replicator' from Star Trek, and programs will just appear as you want them.

experiencing the gpt3->4o->sonnet4->opus4.6->fable trajectory I am fairly confident what we call programmer today will not exist, in the same time regular people will finally be able to tell computers what to do and this will unlock the next stage of complexity in manufacturing/material science/medicine and so on.

of course I am likely wrong, people say: its never as good or as bad as you think.

[geraneum]

> gpt3->4o->sonnet4->opus4.6->fable

While there are a lot of resources being poured into improving and integrating tooling and use cases and increasing model sizes, the leap between the models you notes are not as much as you think it is. It's the same tech that's scalable to a certain limit of diminishing return. It's a recurrent pattern in technology.

> yes, I assume we will have the 'replicator' from Star Trek, and programs will just appear as you want them.

Yes, perhaps one day. Probably no other "job" as they are today will have the same shape and form. Cancer will be cured and fission will be solved. We may even crack teleporting. Let's hope these all happen and the outcome is not detrimental the livelihood of humans.

[jackdoe]

> It's the same tech that's scalable to a certain limit of diminishing return.

of course, my point was that gpt3->4o was smaller jump than opus 4.6->fable