[finnjohnsen2]

I like this. This is an accurate state of AI at this very moment for me. The LLM is (just) a tool which is making me "amplified" for coding and certain tasks.

I will worry about developers being completely replaced when I see something resembling it. Enough people worry about that (or say it to amp stock prices) -- and they like to tell everyone about this future too. I just don't see it.

[DrewADesign]

Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.

[finnjohnsen2]

I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s** done.

Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second.

I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know the future anyway.

[emp17344]

This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.

[cogman10]

The more likely outcome is that fewer devs will be hired as fewer devs will be needed to accomplish the same amount of output.

[HPsquared]

The old shrinking markets aka lump of labour fallacy. It's a bit like dreaming of that mythical day, when all of the work will be done.

[NewEntryHN]

This implication completely depends on the elasticity (or lack thereof) of demand for software. When marginal profit from additional output exceeds labor cost savings, firms expand rather than shrink.

[slopinthebag]

When computers came onto the market and could automate a large percentage of office jobs, what happened to the job market for office jobs?