To add to NhanH's earlier point [1]: I think it's an overall interesting thought, but the whole argument hinges on an unfortunate association fallacy [2] itself

To add to NhanH's earlier point [1]: I think it's an overall interesting thought, but the whole argument hinges on an unfortunate association fallacy [2] itself premised on a leaky and questionable analogy. Besides, as you well know, there might well be very good complexity-theoretical reasons [3] for drawing a distinction between the easily scriptable, repeatable, limited-state steps required to implement/carry on a solution for a given problem; and the non-trivial steps it took to come up with that solution in the first place. It seems to me the great successes in automation during the industrial revolutions were mostly about parallelizing the former, not the latter; while most day-to-day computer programming predominantly involves the latter, not the former. One way or the other, it's far from evident the analogy is even applicable in this case. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724501 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7724501 [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy [3] http://www.claymath.org/millenium-problems/p-vs-np-problem http://www.claymath.org/millenium-problems/p-vs-np-problem