I would only be happy if in the end the author turns out to be right.
But as the things stand right now, I can see a significant boost to my own productivity, which leads me to believe that fewer people are going to be needed.
I can see a future where software development goes the same way. My wife works in science and I see all kinds of things in a casual observation of her work that could be made more efficient with good software support. But not by enough to pay six-figures per year for multiple devs to create it. So it doesn’t get done and her work and the work of tens of thousands like her around the world is less efficient as a result.
In a world where development is even half as expensive, many such tasks become approachable. If it becomes a third or quarter as expensive, even more applications are now profitable.
I think far more people will be doing something that creates the outcomes that are today created by SWEs manually coding. I doubt it will be quite as lucrative for the median person doing it, but I think it will still be well above the median wage and there will be a lot of it.
1. Fundamentals do change, Yuval Noah Harari made this point in the book Sapiens, but basically there are core beliefs (in fact the idea that things do change for the better is relatively new, “the only constant is change”. Wasn’t really true before the 19th century.
What does “the great disrupter we can’t adapt to” mean exactly? If humans annihilate themselves from climate change, the earth will adapt, the solar system will shrug it off and the universe won’t even realize it happened.
But like, I am 100% sure humans will adapt to the AI revolution. Maybe we let 7 billion people die off, and the 1% of the rest enslave the rest of us to be masseuses and prostitutes and live like kings with robot servants, but I’m not super comfortable with that definition if “adaptation”.
For most of human history and most of the world “the rest of us” don’t live all that well, is that adaptation? I think most people include a healthy large, and growing middle class in their definition of success metrics.
There might be slight local dips along the timeline, but I think most Westerners (and maybe most people, but my lived experience is Western) would not willingly trade places with their same-percentile positioned selves from 100, 200, 500, 1000, 2000, 10K, 50K, or 250K years ago. The fact that few would choose to switch has to be viewed with some positive coefficient in a reasonable success metric.
Ironically, like an LLM, this article feels like more like an amalgamation of plenty of other opinions on the growth of AI in the workplace rather than any original thoughts. There's not really anything "new" here, just putting together a load of existing opinions.
(I am not suggesting that Jason got an AI to write this article, though that would be funny).