I don't think you have to go too far down these lines and you get to not just the "End of Programming" but also the "End of Intellectual Work". It's quite gloomy if you think too much about it.
Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient.
Not necessary: Every tech innovation developed in a capitalist society that has ultimately improved that society.
Not sufficient: USSR.
>elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting
Reminder: Stalin was an elite in the same country he was exploiting. If you think the societal progress of Soviet citizens was hampered more by elites from some other country than by Stalin's own policies, I'd be interested to know who you have in mind.
Historically, the only times in which workers in developed countries saw gains relative to Capital owners is when they organized into large unionized formations during the Industrial Revolution and when the West was under threat from Soviet Union, both materially and ideologically. Since the collapse of the USSR, inequality has spiked massively and technological progress has become even more decoupled from societal progress.
And you’re correct about Stalin because the country was underdeveloped in its political economy and quickly devolved into totalitarianism under pressure from external threats. This eventually culminated in them attempting to speed-run a form of state-directed Capitalism, with its corresponding class formations (see Bettleheim’s book Class Struggle in the USSR). The same thing also happened in China, although more durably and shifted by about 20-30 years, relative to their revolution. Soviet and early CCP leaders were mistaken in thinking that you could leapfrog Capitalist development and thus both succumbed to its forces, the former externally and the latter internally.
I think "progress" without further qualification must be understood to mean progress in absolute terms, not progress of one arbitrary subset relative to another. A society in which everything gets 2x better for left-handed people and 20x better for right-handed people has progressed materially despite the increase in inequality. (Inequality has its own downsides, but I consider those secondary to differences in absolute quality of life -- interested in any cases you can think of where there's a strong argument to the contrary.)
>under pressure from external threats
I think it's misleading to suggest that capitalist countries do not experience such threats, or experience them to a lesser degree. If you accept that all nations are constantly under pressure from external threats, the fact that the USSR was too is not an explanation for the authoritarianism that arose there.
If it helps at all, I certainly don't consider capitalism a perfect system. The Industrial Revolution created the working class and made its members' quality of life dramatically worse in absolute terms for at least a century, but the benefits we have today are too enormous to ignore.
> If you accept that all nations are constantly under pressure from external threats, the fact that the USSR was too is not an explanation for the authoritarianism that arose there.
I do accept this and note that it is a common pattern across countries, relative to their development. The US became much more authoritarian post 9/11, suspended many forms of rights and freedoms, disregarded its own and international laws. But because it was a more stable political formation, did not devolve into full authoritarianism. Still, within 19 years, it faced an insurrection attempt by an authoritarian leader. The USSR was, by contrast, about a decade old, newly emerged from a civil war, and had very little in the way of solid state infrastructure. It’s thus unsurprising that they devolved into authoritarianism.
I'm not sure what you mean by "this". (I don't think you meant absolute progress, since that is not measured this way.)
The wealthy in US are much wealthier than the remaining population in the US (greater inequality than Australia), the US as a country has lower life expectancy and qality of life reported overall.
Your "thought experiment" isn't particularly realistic, "double the wealth" for the wealthy isn't something that magically happens in isolation.
For those who are goal-oriented, the focus is on the outcome: discovering new things, earning money, or making an impact. LLMs can achieve many of these objectives, potentially overshadowing the achievements of goal-driven individuals. This could be particularly disheartening when the goals are as fundamental as earning a living.
On the other hand, those who are process-oriented value the journey itself - the state of flow, the challenge of problem-solving. For them, the advent of LLMs is less troubling. It's not the first time a process has been automated away from humans: Knitting remains a beloved activity despite the existence of industrial looms. Enjoying programming for its own sake is unaffected by the efficiency or capabilities of LLMs.
I think it's valid to be upset about LLMs taking jobs. But under the assumption that one's basic needs are met, I think it's a good reminder that focusing on process over goals can make you both happier and more resilient to outside change.
That is a luxury of hobbies. Most people are income-driven.
If programming didn't help me automate my sys admin work, help me make games, websites and other creations I wouldn't bother with it.