[jwblackwell]

The author is essentially arguing that fewer people will be able to build software in the future.

That's the opposite of what's happened over the past year or two. Now many more non-technical people can (and are) building software.

[walleeee]

> The author is essentially arguing that fewer people will be able to build software in the future.

Setting aside the fact that the author nowhere says this, it may in fact be plausible.

> That's the opposite of what's happened over the past year or two. Now many more non-technical people can (and are) building software.

Meanwhile half[0] the students supposed to be learning to build software in university will fail to learn something important because they asked Claude instead of thinking about it. (Or all the students using llms will fail to learn something half the time, etc.)

[0]: https://www.anthropic.com/news/anthropic-education-report-ho...

> That said, nearly half (~47%) of student-AI conversations were Direct—that is, seeking answers or content with minimal engagement.

[wobfan]

No, he never states this and is not true.

The author tell his experience regarding his joy programming things and figuring stuff out. In the end he says that AI made him lose this joy, and he compares it to cheating in a game. He does not say one word about societal impact and or the amount of engineers in the future, it's what you interpreted yourself.

[jwblackwell]

“ In some countries, more than 90% of the population lives on less than $5 per day. If agentic AI code generation becomes the most effective way to write high-quality code, this will create a massive barrier to entry”