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 17 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 12 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 10 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 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

jimbokun 12 hours ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	topocite 5 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 18 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.