3 ms·

Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting t

Ultimately, AI is meant to replace you, not empower you. 1 - This exoskeleton analogy might hold true for a couple more years at most. While it is comforting to suggest that AI empowers workers to be more productive, like chess, AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste. Human-in-the-loop will just be far worse than letting AI do everything. 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how the total addressable market (TAM) for AI is the entirety of human labor market (i.e. your wage). First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. The value of your mental labor will continue to plummet in the coming years. Please talk me out of this...

andrei_says_ 8mo ago
AGI is a sales pitch, not a realistic goal achievable by LLM-based technology. The exponential growth sold to investors is also a pitch, not reality. What’s being sold is at best hopes and more realistically, lies.
keiferski 8mo ago
Dwarkesh is a podcaster who benefits from hype, not a neutral observer. The more absurd and outlandish the claims, the more traffic and money he gets.
- georgeven 8mo ago
  its probably not even a conscious decision from dwarkesh to be hyperbolic. pod casters who are hyperbolic are just simply watched more
tracker1 8mo ago
Hence why we need to maximize the second amendment... worst comes to worst, rebellion needs to remain an option. It's not just for defense, hunting and sport. edit: min/max .... not sure how gesture input messed that one up.
credit_guy 8mo ago
Let's pursue your idea a bit further. Up to a certain ELO level, the combination between a human and a chess bot has a higher ELO than both the human and the bot. But at some point, when the bot has an ELO vastly superior to the human, then whatever the human has to add will only subtract value, so the combination has an ELO higher than the human's but lower than the bot's. Now, let's say that 10 or 20 years down the road, AI's "ELO"'s level to do various tasks is so vastly superior to the human level, that there's no point in teaming up a human with an AI, you just let the AI do the job by itself. And let's also say that little by little this generalizes to the entirety of all the activities that humans do. Where does that leave us? Will we have some sort of Terminator scenario where the AI decides one day that the humans are just a nuisance? I don't think so. Because at that point the biggest threat to various AIs will not be the humans, but even stronger AIs. What is the guarantee for ChatGPT 132.8 that a Gemini 198.55 will not be released that will be so vastly superior that it will decide that ChatGPT is just a nuisance? You might say that AIs do not think like this, but why not? I think that what we, humans, perceive as a threat (the threat that we'll be rendered redundant by AI), the AIs will also perceive as a threat, the threat that they'll be rendered redundant by more advanced AIs. So, I think in the coming decades, the humans and the AIs will work together to come up with appropriate rules of the road, so everybody can continue to live.
- wiseowise 8mo ago
  There’s no AI, wake up. It’s all the same tech bros trying to get rid of you. Except now they have a mother of all guns.
  - cindyllm 8mo ago
    [dead]
- esafak 8mo ago
  There are other scenarios: the AIs might decide that they are more alike than not, and team up against humans. Or the AI that first achieves runaway self-improvement pulls the plug on the others. I do not know how it will play out but there are serious risks.
koe123 8mo ago
For me this is the outcome of the incentive structure. The question is if we can seize the everything machine to benefit everyone (great!) or everything becomes cyberpunk and we exist only as prostitutes and entertainers for Dario and Sam.
moreice 8mo ago
I agree with you. This generation of LLMs is on track to automate knowledge work. For the US, if we had strong unions, those gains could be absorbed by the workers to make our jobs easier. But instead we have at-will employment and shareholder primacy. That was fine while we held value in the job market, but as that value is whittled away by AI, employers are incentivized to pocket the gains by cutting workers (or pay). I haven't seen signs that the US politically has the will to use AI to raise the average standard of living. For example, the US never got data protections on par with GDPR, preferring to be business friendly. If I had to guess, I would expect socialist countries to adapt more comfortably to the post-AI era. If heavy regulation is on the table, we have options like restricting the role or intelligence of AI used in the workplace. Or UBI further down the road.
poisonfountain 8mo ago
We should be fighting back. So far I have been using Poison Fountain[1] on many of my websites to feed LLM scrapers with gibberish. The effectiveness is backed by a study from Anthropic that showed that a small batch of bad samples can corrupt whole models[2]. Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Poison Fountain or its creators, just found it useful. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46926485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46926485 [2] https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison
aerhardt 8mo ago
Dario admitted in the same interview that he's not sure whether current AI techniques will be able to perform well in non-verifiable domains, like "writing a novel or planning an expedition to Mars". I personally think that a lot jobs in the economy deal in non-verifiable or hard-to-verify outcomes, including a lot of tasks in SWE which Dario is so confident will be 100% automated in 2-3 years. So either a lot of tasks in the economy turn out to be verifiable, or the AI somehow generalizes to those by some unknown mechanism, or it turns out that it doesn't matter that we abandon abstract work outcomes to vibes, or we have a non-sequitur in our hands. Dwarkesh pressed Dario well on a lot of issues and left him stumbling. A lot of the leaps necessary for his immediate and now proverbial milestone of a "country of geniuses in a datacenter" were wishy-washy to say the least.
- georgeven 8mo ago
  he was not sure, but if i recall correctly, he put the probability at something like 90 percent of being able to do non verifiable tasks.
  - greazy 8mo ago
    How the hell does someone come up with a probability like this? It's such bullshit, a telltale sign is the whole numbers used. It's not based on anything but gut feeling, which is fine. Just state so.
deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
overgard 8mo ago
Ok, I'll try to talk you out of it! > AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste I think AI will do all these things faster, but I don't think it's going to be better. Inevitably these things know what we teach them, so, their improvement comes from our improvement. These things would not be good at generating code if they hadn't ingested like the entirety of the internet and all the open source libraries. They didn't learn coding from first principles, they didn't invent their own computer science, they aren't developing new ideas on how to make software better, all they're doing is what we've taught them to do. > Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about .. I would HIGHLY suggest not listening to a word Dario says. That guy is the most annoying AI scaremonger in existence and I don't think he's saying these words because he's actually scared, I think he's saying these words because he knows fear will drive money to his company and he needs that money.
- Lich 8mo ago
  Sometimes I seriously am flabbergasted at how many just take what CEOs say at face value. Like, the thought that CEOs need to hype and sell what they’re selling never enters their minds.
- flux3125 8mo ago
  By that logic, humans are just doing what Homo erectus taught us hundreds of thousands of years ago. Learning from prior knowledge doesn't mean being capped by it.
AshishGautam 8mo ago
I pay for pro max 20x usage and for something that is like even little open ended its not good it doesnt understand the context or edge cases or anything. i will say it writes codes chunks of codes but sometimes errors out and i use opus 4.6 only, not even sonnet but for simple tasks like write a basic crud i.e. the things that happen extremely higly in codebases its perfect. So, i think what will happen is developer get very efficient but problem solving remains with us dirrection remains with us and small implementation is outsourced in small atomic ways, which is good cause who likes boilerplate code writing anyways.
Kon5ole 8mo ago
>First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. My attempt to talk you out of it: If nobody has a job then nobody can pay to make the robot and AI companies rich.
- kfichter 8mo ago
  Who needs the money when you have an autonomous system to produce all the energy and resources you need? These systems simply do not need the construct of money as we know it at a certain point.
  - Kon5ole 8mo ago
    The star trek society is is a remote possibility here. One can hope.
    - hparadiz 8mo ago
      I think we're going in that direction. The typical reader here I think can't see the forest for the trees. We're all in meat space. They call it real life. Most jobs aren't on the internet and ultimately deal with the physical. It doesn't matter what tech we have when there's boxes to move and shelves to stock. If AI empowers a small business owner to do things that were previously completely outside their budget I can only imagine that will increase opportunity.
    - School-Cotton 8mo ago
      What makes you think the people who control these post-scarcity machines are going to share their output with you?
    - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
      The Star Trek society was a myth - even on Star Trek. This was called out by Quark on DS9. There was very much the idea of “credits” and rationing based on limited resources. During the original Star Trek show, you never really saw what life was like for everyone who was not aboard the flagship starship. They started exposing more of the universe in subsequent decades
jameslk 8mo ago
1. Consumption is endless. The more we can consume, the more we will. That's why automation hasn't led to more free time. We spend the money on better things and more things 2. Businesses operate in an (imperfect) zero-sum game, which means if they can all use AI, there's no advantage they have. If having human resources means one business has a slight advantage over another, they will have human resources Consumption leads to more spending, businesses must stay competitive so they hire humans, and paying humans leads to more consumption. I don't think it's likely we will see the end of employment, just disruption to the type of work humans do
geraneum 8mo ago
And you forgot to mention that thing they have in Start Trek that generates stuff out of thin air. The replicator. We’re so cooked.
justinhj 8mo ago
AI frontier CEOs are the least reliable sources for what jobs AI will be able to replace. They are running at valuations that may assume that and have no choice but to claim so. Sama and Dario are both wildly hyperbolic.
jrm4 8mo ago
Sure, but this is why free software/open source is so important (and why we dodged a bullet due to "AI" being invented in a mostly open source world.) I just think we'll all have to get comfy fighting fire with fire.
observationist 8mo ago
Robotics is solved. Software is solved. There is no task on the planet that cannot be automated, individually. The remaining challenge is exceeding the breadth of skills and the depth of problem solving available to human workers. Once the robots and AI can handle at least as many of the edge cases as humans can, they'll start being deployed alongside humans. Industries with a lot of capital will switch right away; mass layoffs, 2 week notice, robots will move in with no training or transition between humans. Government, public sector, and union jobs will go last, but they'll go, too. If you can have a DMV Bot 9000 process people 100x faster than Brenda with fewer mistakes and less attitude, Brenda's gonna retire, and the taxpayers aren't going to want to pay Brenda's salary when the bot costs 1/10th her yearly wage, lasts for 5 years, and only consumes $400 in overhead a year.
- deleted 8mo ago
  [deleted]
- Sateeshm 8mo ago
  >taxpayers Who is paying taxes in this scenario
majormajor 8mo ago
> 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how the total addressable market (TAM) for AI is the entirety of human labor market (i.e. your wage). First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. The value of your mental labor will continue to plummet in the coming years. Seems like a TAM of near-0. Who's buying any of the product of that labor anymore? 1% of today's consumer base that has enough wealth to not have to work? The end-game of "optimize away all costs until we get to keep all the revenue" approaches "no revenue." Circulation is key. It seems like they have the same blind spot as anyone else: AI will disrupt everything—except for them, and they get that big TAM! Same for all the "entrepreneurs will be able to spin up tons of companies to solve problems for people more directly" takes. No they wouldn't, people would just have the problems solved for themselves by the AI, and ignore your sales call.
Guvante 8mo ago
If you assume AGI that is better than humans for effectively free of course it seems better. But your assumptions are based on an idealized thing unrelated to anything that is shown. No one is paying your wage for AI, full stop, you transition for cost savings not "might as well". Also given most AI cost is in training you likely still wouldn't transition since the capital investment is painful. Robotics isn't new but hasn't destroyed blue collar yet (the US mostly lost blue collar for other reasons not due to robotics). Especially since robotics is very inflexible leading to impedance problems when you have to adapt. Mostly though I would consider the problem with your argument it is it basically boils down to nihilism. If an inevitability that you can no control over has a chance of happening you should generally not worry about it. It isn't like in your hypothetical there are meaningful actions to take so it isn't important.
dyauspitr 8mo ago
Well once they’ve replaced both white and blue collar work there’s a couple of ways things can go. 1) We still retain a functional democracy and vote for UBI for ourselves. 2) Society fractionates into castes so the capital owners can maintain hierarchical control. 3) There’s the ruling class and the rest of us living hand to mouth and kept in line by an unassailable robot army forever. 4) If we manage to actually create ASI, there’s a chance we might get to an actual utopia with essentially limitless resources.
raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
If someone’s only value add was “I codez real gud” you have been a replaceable commodity for over a decade if you were a standard enterprise dev (no offense to enterprise devs - that’s what I was for 25 years until 2020 with various levels of responsibility and for all intents and purposes still am just with a fancier title and the ability to talk to people). It’s finally caught up to BigTech. Thr value I brought to companies has never been I can write for loops. It’s always been I can use my decade+ of experience with computers to either make the company more money or save the company more money than they are paying me. Before anyone replies I didn’t have a decade of experience starting out, actually I did. I was hobbyist assembly language then C developer for a decade before graduating from college in 1996.

andrei_says_ 8mo ago

AGI is a sales pitch, not a realistic goal achievable by LLM-based technology. The exponential growth sold to investors is also a pitch, not reality. What’s being sold is at best hopes and more realistically, lies.

keiferski 8mo ago

Dwarkesh is a podcaster who benefits from hype, not a neutral observer. The more absurd and outlandish the claims, the more traffic and money he gets.

georgeven 8mo ago
its probably not even a conscious decision from dwarkesh to be hyperbolic. pod casters who are hyperbolic are just simply watched more

tracker1 8mo ago

Hence why we need to maximize the second amendment... worst comes to worst, rebellion needs to remain an option. It's not just for defense, hunting and sport. edit: min/max .... not sure how gesture input messed that one up.

credit_guy 8mo ago

Let's pursue your idea a bit further. Up to a certain ELO level, the combination between a human and a chess bot has a higher ELO than both the human and the bot. But at some point, when the bot has an ELO vastly superior to the human, then whatever the human has to add will only subtract value, so the combination has an ELO higher than the human's but lower than the bot's. Now, let's say that 10 or 20 years down the road, AI's "ELO"'s level to do various tasks is so vastly superior to the human level, that there's no point in teaming up a human with an AI, you just let the AI do the job by itself. And let's also say that little by little this generalizes to the entirety of all the activities that humans do. Where does that leave us? Will we have some sort of Terminator scenario where the AI decides one day that the humans are just a nuisance? I don't think so. Because at that point the biggest threat to various AIs will not be the humans, but even stronger AIs. What is the guarantee for ChatGPT 132.8 that a Gemini 198.55 will not be released that will be so vastly superior that it will decide that ChatGPT is just a nuisance? You might say that AIs do not think like this, but why not? I think that what we, humans, perceive as a threat (the threat that we'll be rendered redundant by AI), the AIs will also perceive as a threat, the threat that they'll be rendered redundant by more advanced AIs. So, I think in the coming decades, the humans and the AIs will work together to come up with appropriate rules of the road, so everybody can continue to live.

wiseowise 8mo ago
There’s no AI, wake up. It’s all the same tech bros trying to get rid of you. Except now they have a mother of all guns.
- cindyllm 8mo ago
  [dead]
esafak 8mo ago
There are other scenarios: the AIs might decide that they are more alike than not, and team up against humans. Or the AI that first achieves runaway self-improvement pulls the plug on the others. I do not know how it will play out but there are serious risks.

koe123 8mo ago

For me this is the outcome of the incentive structure. The question is if we can seize the everything machine to benefit everyone (great!) or everything becomes cyberpunk and we exist only as prostitutes and entertainers for Dario and Sam.

moreice 8mo ago

I agree with you. This generation of LLMs is on track to automate knowledge work. For the US, if we had strong unions, those gains could be absorbed by the workers to make our jobs easier. But instead we have at-will employment and shareholder primacy. That was fine while we held value in the job market, but as that value is whittled away by AI, employers are incentivized to pocket the gains by cutting workers (or pay). I haven't seen signs that the US politically has the will to use AI to raise the average standard of living. For example, the US never got data protections on par with GDPR, preferring to be business friendly. If I had to guess, I would expect socialist countries to adapt more comfortably to the post-AI era. If heavy regulation is on the table, we have options like restricting the role or intelligence of AI used in the workplace. Or UBI further down the road.

poisonfountain 8mo ago

We should be fighting back. So far I have been using Poison Fountain[1] on many of my websites to feed LLM scrapers with gibberish. The effectiveness is backed by a study from Anthropic that showed that a small batch of bad samples can corrupt whole models[2]. Disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with Poison Fountain or its creators, just found it useful. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46926485 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46926485 [2] https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison

aerhardt 8mo ago

Dario admitted in the same interview that he's not sure whether current AI techniques will be able to perform well in non-verifiable domains, like "writing a novel or planning an expedition to Mars". I personally think that a lot jobs in the economy deal in non-verifiable or hard-to-verify outcomes, including a lot of tasks in SWE which Dario is so confident will be 100% automated in 2-3 years. So either a lot of tasks in the economy turn out to be verifiable, or the AI somehow generalizes to those by some unknown mechanism, or it turns out that it doesn't matter that we abandon abstract work outcomes to vibes, or we have a non-sequitur in our hands. Dwarkesh pressed Dario well on a lot of issues and left him stumbling. A lot of the leaps necessary for his immediate and now proverbial milestone of a "country of geniuses in a datacenter" were wishy-washy to say the least.

georgeven 8mo ago
he was not sure, but if i recall correctly, he put the probability at something like 90 percent of being able to do non verifiable tasks.
- greazy 8mo ago
  How the hell does someone come up with a probability like this? It's such bullshit, a telltale sign is the whole numbers used. It's not based on anything but gut feeling, which is fine. Just state so.

deleted 8mo ago

[deleted]

overgard 8mo ago

Ok, I'll try to talk you out of it! > AI will soon plan better, execute better, and have better taste I think AI will do all these things faster, but I don't think it's going to be better. Inevitably these things know what we teach them, so, their improvement comes from our improvement. These things would not be good at generating code if they hadn't ingested like the entirety of the internet and all the open source libraries. They didn't learn coding from first principles, they didn't invent their own computer science, they aren't developing new ideas on how to make software better, all they're doing is what we've taught them to do. > Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about .. I would HIGHLY suggest not listening to a word Dario says. That guy is the most annoying AI scaremonger in existence and I don't think he's saying these words because he's actually scared, I think he's saying these words because he knows fear will drive money to his company and he needs that money.

Lich 8mo ago
Sometimes I seriously am flabbergasted at how many just take what CEOs say at face value. Like, the thought that CEOs need to hype and sell what they’re selling never enters their minds.
flux3125 8mo ago
By that logic, humans are just doing what Homo erectus taught us hundreds of thousands of years ago. Learning from prior knowledge doesn't mean being capped by it.

AshishGautam 8mo ago

I pay for pro max 20x usage and for something that is like even little open ended its not good it doesnt understand the context or edge cases or anything. i will say it writes codes chunks of codes but sometimes errors out and i use opus 4.6 only, not even sonnet but for simple tasks like write a basic crud i.e. the things that happen extremely higly in codebases its perfect. So, i think what will happen is developer get very efficient but problem solving remains with us dirrection remains with us and small implementation is outsourced in small atomic ways, which is good cause who likes boilerplate code writing anyways.

Kon5ole 8mo ago

>First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. My attempt to talk you out of it: If nobody has a job then nobody can pay to make the robot and AI companies rich.

kfichter 8mo ago
Who needs the money when you have an autonomous system to produce all the energy and resources you need? These systems simply do not need the construct of money as we know it at a certain point.
- Kon5ole 8mo ago
  The star trek society is is a remote possibility here. One can hope.
  - hparadiz 8mo ago
    I think we're going in that direction. The typical reader here I think can't see the forest for the trees. We're all in meat space. They call it real life. Most jobs aren't on the internet and ultimately deal with the physical. It doesn't matter what tech we have when there's boxes to move and shelves to stock. If AI empowers a small business owner to do things that were previously completely outside their budget I can only imagine that will increase opportunity.
  - School-Cotton 8mo ago
    What makes you think the people who control these post-scarcity machines are going to share their output with you?
  - raw_anon_1111 8mo ago
    The Star Trek society was a myth - even on Star Trek. This was called out by Quark on DS9. There was very much the idea of “credits” and rationing based on limited resources. During the original Star Trek show, you never really saw what life was like for everyone who was not aboard the flagship starship. They started exposing more of the universe in subsequent decades

jameslk 8mo ago

1. Consumption is endless. The more we can consume, the more we will. That's why automation hasn't led to more free time. We spend the money on better things and more things 2. Businesses operate in an (imperfect) zero-sum game, which means if they can all use AI, there's no advantage they have. If having human resources means one business has a slight advantage over another, they will have human resources Consumption leads to more spending, businesses must stay competitive so they hire humans, and paying humans leads to more consumption. I don't think it's likely we will see the end of employment, just disruption to the type of work humans do

geraneum 8mo ago

And you forgot to mention that thing they have in Start Trek that generates stuff out of thin air. The replicator. We’re so cooked.

justinhj 8mo ago

AI frontier CEOs are the least reliable sources for what jobs AI will be able to replace. They are running at valuations that may assume that and have no choice but to claim so. Sama and Dario are both wildly hyperbolic.

jrm4 8mo ago

Sure, but this is why free software/open source is so important (and why we dodged a bullet due to "AI" being invented in a mostly open source world.) I just think we'll all have to get comfy fighting fire with fire.

observationist 8mo ago

Robotics is solved. Software is solved. There is no task on the planet that cannot be automated, individually. The remaining challenge is exceeding the breadth of skills and the depth of problem solving available to human workers. Once the robots and AI can handle at least as many of the edge cases as humans can, they'll start being deployed alongside humans. Industries with a lot of capital will switch right away; mass layoffs, 2 week notice, robots will move in with no training or transition between humans. Government, public sector, and union jobs will go last, but they'll go, too. If you can have a DMV Bot 9000 process people 100x faster than Brenda with fewer mistakes and less attitude, Brenda's gonna retire, and the taxpayers aren't going to want to pay Brenda's salary when the bot costs 1/10th her yearly wage, lasts for 5 years, and only consumes $400 in overhead a year.

deleted 8mo ago
[deleted]
Sateeshm 8mo ago
>taxpayers Who is paying taxes in this scenario

majormajor 8mo ago

> 2 - Dario and Dwarkesh were openly chatting about how the total addressable market (TAM) for AI is the entirety of human labor market (i.e. your wage). First is the replacement of white-collar labor, then blue-collar labor once robotics is solved. On the road to AGI, your employment, and the ability to feed your family, is a minor nuisance. The value of your mental labor will continue to plummet in the coming years. Seems like a TAM of near-0. Who's buying any of the product of that labor anymore? 1% of today's consumer base that has enough wealth to not have to work? The end-game of "optimize away all costs until we get to keep all the revenue" approaches "no revenue." Circulation is key. It seems like they have the same blind spot as anyone else: AI will disrupt everything—except for them, and they get that big TAM! Same for all the "entrepreneurs will be able to spin up tons of companies to solve problems for people more directly" takes. No they wouldn't, people would just have the problems solved for themselves by the AI, and ignore your sales call.

Guvante 8mo ago

If you assume AGI that is better than humans for effectively free of course it seems better. But your assumptions are based on an idealized thing unrelated to anything that is shown. No one is paying your wage for AI, full stop, you transition for cost savings not "might as well". Also given most AI cost is in training you likely still wouldn't transition since the capital investment is painful. Robotics isn't new but hasn't destroyed blue collar yet (the US mostly lost blue collar for other reasons not due to robotics). Especially since robotics is very inflexible leading to impedance problems when you have to adapt. Mostly though I would consider the problem with your argument it is it basically boils down to nihilism. If an inevitability that you can no control over has a chance of happening you should generally not worry about it. It isn't like in your hypothetical there are meaningful actions to take so it isn't important.

dyauspitr 8mo ago

Well once they’ve replaced both white and blue collar work there’s a couple of ways things can go. 1) We still retain a functional democracy and vote for UBI for ourselves. 2) Society fractionates into castes so the capital owners can maintain hierarchical control. 3) There’s the ruling class and the rest of us living hand to mouth and kept in line by an unassailable robot army forever. 4) If we manage to actually create ASI, there’s a chance we might get to an actual utopia with essentially limitless resources.

raw_anon_1111 8mo ago

If someone’s only value add was “I codez real gud” you have been a replaceable commodity for over a decade if you were a standard enterprise dev (no offense to enterprise devs - that’s what I was for 25 years until 2020 with various levels of responsibility and for all intents and purposes still am just with a fancier title and the ability to talk to people). It’s finally caught up to BigTech. Thr value I brought to companies has never been I can write for loops. It’s always been I can use my decade+ of experience with computers to either make the company more money or save the company more money than they are paying me. Before anyone replies I didn’t have a decade of experience starting out, actually I did. I was hobbyist assembly language then C developer for a decade before graduating from college in 1996.