I don’t think over the last 5-8 years there has been a shortage of code-slingers, as evidenced by all the tech layoffs. Using LLMs to generate more code does not equal productivity. There’s that famous story about the -2000 LOC commit, etc.
From observation and induction, it seems very easy to contribute net-negative value in a software development position, and delivering long-term net positive value really requires a lot of discipline from the developers, or a lot of wrangling from non-technical members.
PS: Discipline here does not mean "being picky about what things to accept" it means being picky about what things you make up. From observation, a lot of the most valuable work is super fucking boring, and it takes discipline not to make up a more intellectually stimulating task.
I could not have attempted to create the application I have created without it.
As far as money-making - I wager it's helped me a great deal more in regards to preparation for marketing and sales, since I barely knew where to start with that. But I don't have the tangible proof yet, since I'm just starting that process up.
If you can create an application easily with AI, then someone else can also create that application easily with AI. This means the value is no longer in that application merely existing.
To me, this means that the value, i.e. the things people will pay for, in software will increasingly come from branding on the low end and from the applications that AI can't yet create on the high end.