That's because the threat is now not other businesses, but your own users who decide to vibe-code their own "Claw" product instead of using your company's vibeslop, so there are no buyers for your single-week product. All these new harness developers are engaging in resume-driven development to save their own asses. The only ones that are not naked when the tide recedes are the ones that are able to jump to the next layer of abstraction on the infinite staircase, until the next tide comes five seconds later.
As an example: One of my most promising projects I was discussing with a friend and we realized together we could potentially use these tools to build a two person agency with no need to hire anyone ever. If this were to work, could theoretically make nice revenue and it shouldn't show up in any metric anywhere.
Additionally I've heard of countless teams cancelling their contracts with outsourced engineers because cheap but bad coders in India are worse that an LLM and still cost more. I'm not sure if there's a number around this activity, but again, these type of changes don't show up in the usual places.
My current belief is not that AI will replace traditional software engineering it will replace a good chunk of the entire model of software.
You're not following your last line to its logical conclusion regarding your own prospects: no one is going to buy the vibeslop your two person agency is selling because they'd rather create and maintain their own vibeslop instead of dealing with yours.
If you follow some of your thoughts to their logical conclusion you'll realize the parent is right: there will be limited productivity that ends up fueling the economy when nobody is buying each other's vibeslop.
I absolutely agree that it's not logical to think "oh we'll sell our AI stuff", that's the old model (which is just a variation on SaaS). I suspect a lot of HNers can't imagine a "product" that isn't code, but that's not at all what I'm describing.
The products that most people on HN have traditionally built are used by other companies to make money by allowing those processes to be scaled. AI, in many new cases, eliminates the need for a 'software' middle man. The case I'm describing is "I know how to make money doing X if only I could scale it up with out hiring people" and my offering is "I can scale it up without hiring people".
This is increasingly where I think the future of work is headed, and it's more than fine if you aren't convinced.
Faster than what? You will be faster than your previous self, just like all of your competitors. Where’s the net gain here? Even if you somehow managed to capture more value for yourself, you’ve stopped providing value to 5-10x that many employees who are no longer employed.
When costs approach zero on a large scale, margins do not increase. Low costs = you’re not paying anyone = your competitors aren’t paying anyone = your customers no longer have money = your revenue follows your costs straight to zero.
Companies that provide physical services can’t scale without hiring. A one-man “crew” isn’t putting a roof on a data center.
I want to be wrong. Tell me why you think any of this is wrong.
Generally industries once they become a cheap commodity are at best cost based pricing. If you aren't charging to cost I will go to where it is; especially in a saturated market.
Ironically large corp, instead of tech companies, is probably where the SWE jobs of the future are at. Cost based pricing in cost based centre's. Creating own software with domain knowledge; rather than generic SaaS. Shared platforms will probably still have some value; but the value there isn't from the effort in code - more things like network effects, physical control, regulation, etc. Not an industry to get into anymore IMO -> AI is destroying SWE.
Software was always a means to an end; albeit an expensive way to get there that often paid off anyway at scale. The means is getting cheaper; the end remains.
Except production GDP, the standard measure of economic activity.
What are the 48 other people doing now? Presumably some other economic activity.
potentially...if this were to work...theoretically
shouldn't show up? I would worry that something with so many variables wouldn't show up.
It seems to depend a lot on the industry and niche you're in, working at an agency I get experience across many different projects and industries and sometimes you are just at the edge of AIs training and it can get very unhelpful. Noting many if not most companies are working on proprietary code in donain specific problems, that isn't all that surprising either.
So then the question is, lis there anything other than feels to say productive has or has not gone up? What would we accept as actual evidence one way or another? Commits-per-day is similarly not a good measure either. Jira tickets and tshirts sizes? We don't have a good measure, so while ShowHN's per weekend is equally dumb, it's also equally good in the bag of lies, damn lies, and statistics.
At least, in my own experience.
Yeah but the actual productivity gains that the internet and software tools introduced has had diminishing returns after a while.
Like, are people more productive today when they use Outlook and Slack than they were 20 years ago when using IBM Lotus Notes and IBM Sametime? I'm not. Are people more productive with the Excel of today than with Excel 2003/2007? I'm not. Is Windows 11 and MacOS Tahoe making people more productive than Windows 7 and Snow Leopard? Not me. Are IDEs of today offering so much more productivity boost than what Visual Studio, CodeWarrior and Borland Delphi did back in the day? Don't think so.
To me it seems that at least on the productivity side, we've mostly been reinventing the wheel "but in Rust/Electron" for the last 15 or so years, and the biggest productivity gains came IMHO from increased compute power due to semiconductor advancement, so that the same tasks finished faster today than 20 years ago, but not that the SW or the internet got so much more capable since then.