Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.

▲

finnjohnsen2 20 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s** done.

Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second.

I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know the future anyway.

▲

DrewADesign 18 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In fact, there isn’t infinite demand for software. Especially not for all kinds of software.

And if corporate wealth means people get paid more, why are companies that are making more money than ever laying off so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to use them to meet the inexhaustible demand for software?

▲

jimbokun 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I do wonder though if we have about enough (or too much) software.

I hear people complaining about software being forced on them to do things they did just fine without software before, than people complaining about software they want that doesn’t exist.

	▲	dasil003 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah I think being annoyed by software is far more prevalent than wishing for more software. That said, I think there is still a lot of room for software growth as long as it's solving real problems and doesn't get in people's way. What I'm not sure about is what will the net effect of AI be overall when the dust settles. On one hand it is very empowering to individuals, and many of those individuals will be able to achieve grander visions with less compromise and design-by-committee. On the other hand, it also enables an unprecedented level of slop that will certainly dilute the quality of software overall. What will be the dominant effect?

▲

kiba 20 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Jevon's paradox means this is untrue because it means more work not less.

▲

jimbokun 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Jevon’s Paradox is an important observation but I don’t think it’s an immutable law of the universe,

	▲	topocite 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It is a 19th century economic observation around the use of coal. It is like saying the PDF is going to be good for librarian jobs because people will read more. It is stupid. It completely breaks down because of substitution. Farming is the most obvious comparison to me in this. Yes, there will be more food than ever before, the farmer that survives will be better off than before by a lot but to believe the automation of farming tasks by machines leads to more farm jobs is completely absurd.

▲

inglor_cz 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Hm. More of what? Functionality, security, performance?

Current software is often buggy because the pressure to ship is just too high. If AI can fix some loose threads within, the overall quality grows.

Personally, I would welcome a massive deployment of AI to root out various zero-days from widespread libraries.

But we may instead get a larger quantity of even more buggy software.

▲

emp17344 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.

	▲	DrewADesign 19 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That’s not basic economics. Basic economics says that salaries are determined by the demand for labor vs the supply of labor. With more efficiency, each worker does more labor, so you need fewer people to accomplish the same thing. So unless the demand for their product increases around the same rate as productivity increases, companies will employ fewer people. Since the market for products is not infinite, you only need as much labor as you require to meet the demand for your product. Companies that are doing better than ever are laying people off by the shipload, not giving people raises for a job well done.
	▲	topocite 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		You obviously haven't thought about economics much at all to say something this simplistic. There are so many counter examples of this being wrong that it is not even worth bothering. I love economics, but it is largely a field based around half truths and intellectual fraud. It is actually why it is an interesting subject to study.
	▲	gorjusborg 20 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		Well, that depends on whether the technology requires expertise that is rare and/or hard to acquire. I'd say that using AI tools effectively to create software systems is in that class currently, but it isn't necessarily always going to be the case.
	▲	jimbokun 14 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Nah, most of it just gets returned to capital holders.