>I propose a simple lens to settle this debate: look around you and count how many products or services you use regularly that you wish are better digitized or

>I propose a simple lens to settle this debate: look around you and count how many products or services you use regularly that you wish are better digitized or “software-ized.” Unless and until that number is 0, there will be more developers, not less. What? How does this logic work out? Is this not considering how AIs can software-ize products and services in place of a software developer? How about talking about how AI can empower a single developer to do the job of 10 people? These logical implications obviously point to "less developers". I mean it seems really really obvious to me. Whether you agree with the potential of AI or not you need your "lens" to include this angle. The problem I'm seeing is a lot of "simplification" to the point of blindness. Certain Software engineers don't want to face a world where a machine completely trivializes the skills they spent to much time cultivating so they self induce blindness. They lie to themselves the same way tobacco execs and big oil execs had to lie to themselves before lying to the world. The main problem is this: While we made significant progress with LLMs in producing an intelligent AI, We don't know if the current problems with LLMs (hallucinations, occasional logic errors, etc..) are technological dead ends... That's it. That's the main crux everyone is debating about. Even the big experts in AI like Hinton are divided on this fact so there is actual controversy here.