It's a bit like the efficient market hypothesis and the rise of passive funds. The EMH says, if there is any inefficiency in the market, a well-resourced arbitr

It's a bit like the efficient market hypothesis and the rise of passive funds. The EMH says, if there is any inefficiency in the market, a well-resourced arbitrageur can close it and make a lot of money, so all such inefficiencies are closed before they even arise, so actually there are no inefficiencies. But if there are truly no inefficiencies, then there are no arbitrageurs, as they cannot support themselves! And thus no one to keep the markets efficient. Passive investment management works really well, but also sort of depends on someone actually reading annual reports and firing incompetent management. Without it, if everyone just invests passively and thinks not one bit what they are doing, management will pay themselves stupid money and run their businesses to the ground. So... Sure, LLMs learned a lot on from humans, and will eat a lot, maybe 90%+ of programming jobs - which in itself is a little scary. But I'm not sure what a 100% LLM software world looks like. I can imagine, rather, where a lot of mundane stuff that now requires the skills will be shifted to LLMs - like, dunno, a neighbourhood making its own parking app from a prompt. But is the field of software going to stop in its current shape? TFA makes the point that most SEs these days have no idea how CPUs actually work. There was a time where this was all crucial knowledge, and you could say high level languages like Java make SEs redundant. Well they didn't, and employment in software has only been going up in the long run.