Your prediction here incorporates the paradigm shift I mentioned above. The AI software upon which your prediction relies does not yet exist. There is a huge ga

Your prediction here incorporates the paradigm shift I mentioned above. The AI software upon which your prediction relies does not yet exist. There is a huge gap between the current functionality and AI that can produce non-trivial end-to-end programs. It’s tempting to fall into the trap of “five years away” because things like copilot are so significantly different from what we had before. As far as I’m concerned, Occam’s Razor tends to suggest much bigger changes in how robotics affects labor. We simply have to build new robots. There’s no paradigm shift necessary to design a new robot; only labor on the part of the engineers. It’s also relevant here that most folks aren’t too keen to be employed as automation engineers. It’s not exactly glamorous to work explicitly towards the purpose of removing others’ jobs. I personally feel that scientific advances in AI will slow down, not speed up. There’s plenty of research to do in computer science, obviously, but scientific breakthroughs slow down over time.