[Cyberdog]

That you think full-stack developers such as myself are routinely earning "just under $200k" (but please feel free to reach out to me if you need an experienced dev and think that's a fair price to pay) yet "cost money and do not generate profit" seems to speak of a skewed perspective and/or experience, I think. I mean, if that were true, then what would be the point in hiring a web developer in the first place? Some sort of weird nepotistic makework scheme? Again, if that's your perspective…

In my world, clients come to me with a web site and a problem (or no web site and the problem of "I don't have a web site"), we agree on contract terms, and I solve their problem. If I do a good job at it (and I want to do a good job at it, because solving problems and making clients happy feels good while failing at that feels really bad), the client finds value in my work and they will come back to me the next time they have another problem that needs solving. It's that simple. Nobody's hiring me because of "candidate compatibility" and then throwing a bunch of money at me to do nothing.

At least in the short term, I'm not too worried about AI taking my job, because, as stated elsewhere, it's not yet good enough to do more than the least complex of tasks, and as one tries to get it to do more complex things, the odds that it will hit a brick wall due to a bug it can't code its way around or a creative understanding it can't unravel increase - so these sorts of tools might actually end up creating more work for more experienced professionals like myself (although I don't necessarily look forward to the days where I'm regularly being hired to unravel a plate of ChatGPT spaghetti). But even more than that, I feel like a good deal of the value I provide is in being able to talk to a client about what they want the site to do, how it will earn them money, and foresee potential problems or offer better solutions based on my experience - to answer questions that they didn't think to ask, and ask questions of my own to make sure we're on the same page on things. A client just giving me a description of what they want built followed by me just building it? That never happens. There's always discussion and back-and-forth to nail down details and make sure the site is as good as it possibly can be. So long as clients see the value in that, and until AI can do that sort of thing, I'm not sweating it.

[austin-cheney]

The only purpose of software is automation, which is elimination of labor. Eliminating labor reduces expenses. While that is certainly valuable as it contributes toward profit it is not sales. Sales make money.

As a general rule profit is 10% of revenue and revenue is 10% of sales. Sales are the money paid by outside parties. Revenue is money left over after spending associated with sale acquisitions, for example after: marketing, merchandising, and advertising. Profit is money left over after accounting for internal expenses.

As such software never directly contributes toward sales unless software is a product directly sold to an outside party. The developers responsible for that software are virtually never responsible for sales generation even when that software product is directly sold to outside parties. The exception occurs when developers introduce a solution to a business problem into that software product and that solution becomes a direct point of merchandising.

As for the current capabilities of AI the LLM approach does not seem capable of writing original software. Most full stack developers are not writing original software though. The LLMs are already writing superior output with use of large frameworks to the extent that they can generate more efficient products and write the documentation sufficient to teach humans the approach to these large frameworks. Whether you should be worried then becomes a consideration of your employer’s perception of software authorship.

[Cyberdog]

I take incredible exception to what you are saying. What you are saying might be broadly correct for software as a whole, but not at all for web sites; most commercial web sites exist to drive sales, through advertising and promotion of products for sale if not actually selling the products. The largest client I've had for the past six years or so is a web site that makes revenue through advertising and subscription/premium account sales, so improving the site such that it draws in visitors, entices them to stick around and view ads, and encourages them towards ponying up for a premium account for access to more features is the motivation behind everything I do on it. Everything I do on that site is for the purpose of generating revenue. Another site I'm currently building is just a straight-up e-commerce site for specialized products. One I worked on in the past was a credit provider that specialized in loans for medical professionals and encouraged them to take on loans which in turn made the company profit in the form of interest. One major project I worked on early in my career was for a local newspaper that sold advertising and newspaper subscriptions. I could go on.

As for "original software," how are you defining that? Is software only original if it doesn't use any pre-existing frameworks? Okay, is it all right if I use a pre-existing programming language with a pre-existing standard library, or do I need to build my own? Is it all right if I host on a pre-existing VPS provider, or do I need to start my own hosting company? Can I host in pre-existing datacenters or do I need to build my own? Can I use pre-existing server hardware, or… At the end of the day all programmers who are getting anything practical done are using pre-existing tools at some level to solve their problems, often building new tools along the way. If I use the right tools for the job, build what my client wants, and keep end user experience in mind as much as possible (and I always do), then what's the problem?

Are you actually a web developer? Are you not passionate about it?