Lol no it doesn't you literally have it backwards - think about the trades, specifically construction, as low barrier to entry jobs and consider that houses/buildings are all different (not commodities).

▲

coldtea 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Lol,no.

Houses/buildings are each isolated physical structures.

Software is trivially and instantly replicated, and the same software can serve millions.

Also, even in your example you're just the commodified roofer or construction worker. Not the non-commodified house.

▲

knollimar 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Apprentices are considered commodities here

▲

mathisfun123 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Lol you think developers aren't already commodities? You joking?

edit: i love how this is getting downvotes but no further responses. y'all are in denial. let me ask you this: why is the most common interview loop round a generic LC round? lolol

▲

coldtea an hour ago | parent | next [-]

"Lol", do you think in lols or do you ever sit and consider something more deeply? Or maybe you think adding a lol makes the other side's argument ridiculous and yours stronger?

Skipping the lols, here's the answer to your question: doesn't matter if developers "are already commodities" to some degree.

First, because that degree is small, else developers wouldn't command such high salaries relative to other trades. So they might be commoditized compared to surgeons, but not at all compared to most office or blue collar trades.

Second, even if they are commoditized to some degree, the argument is that AI will bring further commodification. Not that it will introduce the first and foremost case of commodification in the developing world.

	▲	mathisfun123 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> developers wouldn't command such high salaries relative to other trades. lololol something can be a commodity and still expensive. to wit: have you heard of this thing called oil which is recently very expensive? > do you think in lols or do you ever sit and consider something more deeply? i think deeply enough to recognize when someone's reasoning is so flawed they should've almost immediately reconsidered their claim upon conceiving of it. and then i laugh out loud (at them) when they didn't. occasionally many many times.

▲

knollimar an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

I was pointing out the reference wasn't pointing at the house but the apprentice.

Lower barrier to entry means the developers are even more interchangeable than now.