I can only think it stems from fear of the unknown, leading people to believe in the worst-case scenarios. But the way I look at it is: no matter how good AI g

I can only think it stems from fear of the unknown, leading people to believe in the worst-case scenarios. But the way I look at it is: no matter how good AI gets, for AI to do something, someone must train it, instruct it, or ask it to do something for them, and then verify the results. All of which takes work from people. I mean even the mere instruction of saying "hey AI, do my taxes for me" takes work from me as I had to muster the very instruction, and there's no getting around this. So there will always be software developers regardless of however good AI gets. We may stop calling such people software developers, but I don't see why that matters. Now, as whether we need less software developers because of efficiency gains? Unlikely to happen, because jobs are created from demand, and humans capacity for demanding things is endless, so the capacity for jobs is endless. This is the reason why the Jevons paradox happens. But in the case that we do in fact need less software developers, it still doesn't matter, because all it does is free up the time to do another job, just like a dishwasher does...