So the OP was in a bad place without Claude anyways (in industry at least).
This realization is the true bitter one for many engineers.
The realization that productive workers aren't just replaceable cogs in the machine is also a bitter lesson for businessmen.
Independent of what AI can do today, I suspect this was a reason why so many resources were poured into its development in the first place. Because this was the ultimate vision behind it.
(1) Define people's worth through labour.
(2) See labour as a cost center that should be eliminated wherever possible.
US politicians and technologists are trying to have it both ways: Oppose a social safety net out of principle as to "not encourage leechers", forcing people to work, but at the same time seek to reduce the opportunities for work as much as possible. AI is the latest and potentially most far-reaching implementation of that.
This is asking for trouble.
Why? Both AI and outsourcing provide a much cheaper way to get programming done. Why would you pay someone 100k because he likes doing what an AI or an Indian dev Team can do for much cheaper?
Generating value for the shareholders and/or investors, not the customers. I suspect this is the next bitter lesson for developers.
The bitter lesson is that making profit is the only directive.
I am sure Software developers are here to stay, but nobody who just writes software is worth anywhere close to 100k a year. Either AI or outsourcing is making sure of that.
And the amount of code these people write is only going to decrease.