I use these things daily, not against this kind of "AI" at all.
If you’re an employee, you are selling a quantity of your time, not your results. Of course you will have to work the same amount of time.
Your issue is with employment as a general concept, wherein the employer reaps any efficiency gains, not the worker.
Your job was to deliver Project X and you did it in half the time. What do you do with the other half? Your job was to deliver X. Now what? Extra vacation time? Just musing.
Sure. For me AI removes the parts of programming work that I like the most, and "gives" me more time to do thing I consider tedious, like solving human problems, achieving consensus in the team, attending meetings.
For self-employed people, it allows them to focus on other problems. I know people who would be bankrupt without AI now because development time was crushing their company and they couldn't afford to hire others. Now they can spend more time in marketing and sales. AI will make some business that weren't profitable in the past viable.
For people who program for leisure, self-consumption or otherwise don't have a major income pressure, it is objectively a huge time saver.
I've had much enjoyment recreating my frequently used utilities on macOS. It's not about saving money, it's costing me more than to keep my subscriptions active, it's more about tailoring things to myself and keeping BPMs up.
There's nothing that will save your employment time because any employer will want to maximize what they get from you. This applies to literally any innovation past, present and future.
A personal anecdote from 2 decades ago which hunts me till today.
I was at a smallish firm in NYC, less than 50 people. I ran the "IT department" which included a couple of devs, DTP folks and one customer support underling who I backed up when needed.
We fixed all the printer problems, all the network shares, everything was quiet. I get called into the corner office and am told, "tell the help desk dude to sweep the floors as they are not doing anything". And, I really liked that boss. It's a different mindset.
The simple fact that I have to write every control scheme in the book to keep the thing on the goal path (and not lapsing into laziness or dishonesty) is itself possibly a safety feature, if you look at it that way
Look three years ago for a reality check of the progress. The LLM you're using now isn't the LLM you'll be using in 5 years. It probably won't even really be the same architecture, just like those from 3 years ago are VERY different than the full systems we use today (harnesses and all). What you're doing was literal science fiction not long ago.
See e.g. https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/facultyworking...
That's a factor of 3 to 5 improvement reported on here. If you keep stacking these kinds of improvements, you end up at month to minutes pretty quickly.
I thought, something like a medication helping the women develop the baby in 30 days, but seriously damages the host in a couple of days, so the fetus gets transferred from host to host. Some die, but the evil rich don't care. Your idea could also work though.
I realize that this is totally the wrong corner of the internet to post this but I guess today I'll just go with it.
As a premise for science fiction, it sounds like it might be interesting.
If humanity lives long enough, someonen will came up with this idea and implement it?
In one part of Brave New World they bring up that they tried to do more automation, but people got restless without the drudgery. In another part, they bring up that they tried to have a society with only Alphas, but they didn't want to do the drudgery.
I wonder why they never tried combining both?
Surely there's a middle ground / this is faster than reading all papers front to back.