johnwheeler

When I started there used to be database analysts and server administrators. There still are but they're in far fewer supply because developers have mostly taken on those roles.

And I think you're right. Cross-function is super important. That's why I think the next consolidation is going to roll up to product development. Basically the product developers that can use AI and manage the full stack are going to be successful but I don't know how long that will last.

What's even more unsettling to me is it's probably going to end up being completely different in a way that nobody can predict. Your predictions, my predictions might be completely wrong, which is par for the course.

This is a really weak argument.

Right, the only problem I have with this argument is that past performance is no indicator of future results.

right, I think in the near term, the worry isn't about replacing people wholesale but just replacing most or more people and causing serious economic disruption. In the limit, you would have a CEO who commands the AI to do everything, but that seems less plausible

it's not about people disagreeing with my assessment. It's that people keep saying, "I'm not afraid of AI because it makes mistakes." That's the main argument I've heard. I don't know if those people are ignorant, arrogant, or in denial. Or maybe they're right. I don't know. But I don't think they're right. Human nature leads me to believe they're in denial. Or they're ignorant. I don't think there's necessarily any shame in being in denial or ignorant. They don't know or see what I see.

I don't have to write code anymore, and the code that's coming out needs less and less of my intervention. Maybe I'm just much better at prompting than other people. But I doubt that

The two things I hear are:

1. You'll always need a human in the loop

2. AI isn't any good at writing code

The first one sounds more plausible, but it means less programmers over time.

I guess the main thing people aren't taking into account from what I see is that the models are substantially improving. Claude Opus 4.5 is markedly better than Claude Sonnet 3.7. If the jump to version 5 represents such a leap, I see it is game over, pretty much. You'll just need one person to manage all your systems or the subsystems, if the entire system is extremely large. And then I can't think past that. I don't know how long it is before AI replaces that central orchestrator and takes the human out of the loop, or if it ever does, that's what they seem to want it to do.

Anyway, I appreciate the response. I don't know how old you are, but I'm kind of old. And I've noticed that I've become much more cynical and pessimistic, not necessarily for any good reasons. So maybe it's just that.

Thank you for your response. This is exactly the type of commentary I'm talking about. The key phrase is "at the moment." It's not that developers will be replaced, but there will be far less need for developers, is what I think.

I think the flaws are going to be solved for, and if that happens, what do you think? I do believe there needs to be a human in the loop, but I don't think there needs to be humans, plural. Eventually.

I believe this is denial. The statement that the best AI can't be reliable enough to do a modest refactoring is not correct. Yes, it can. What it currently cannot do is write a full app from start to finish, but they're working on longer task execution. And this is before any of the big data centers have even been built. What happens then? You get the naysayers that say, "Well, the scaling laws don't apply," but there's a lot of people who think they do apply.

Employed. My contention is the AI is getting so good at doing tech related things that you'll need far fewer employees. I think Claude Code 4.5 is already there. Honestly, it just needs to permeate the market.

To each their own. I can definitely understand that sentiment, although I'm 46 years old, and I've turned more conservative over the last few years, I still really like Obama. I also like Trump, though. It's kind of weird. Don't want to start a flame war though, I respect your opinions.

Yes, I agree with this sentiment. A little better or a little worse, hopefully not too bad. But I think the same feeling of dread will persist, especially going into 2027, particularly around artificial intelligence for tech workers. My concern is that the switch won't be gradual. One day someone will come out with a model that can do everything valuable this software engineer can do. Claude code 4.5 almost hits that mark for me. In a year, I can't imagine…

It might not be AGI, it might not be able to do everything everyone could do, but it'll be enough that you can fire most of the people on your team and just use a few to guide the AI. And I think that's gonna tighten things up in the job market even more. Hopefully it leads to more job creation and it empowers people to compete with one another based on taste and individuals to compete with organizations. That's the best-case scenario I see.

Tech folk. Anyone really.

It's like Penn and Teller say: "Everyone thinks the world is getting worse, but it's always getting better." I hope you're right. Maybe it's just my age creeping up on me and turning me into a cynic. Anyway, good to know there's still people who think positively.

I can't imagine a public execution; that seems insane. I know the world is crazy right now, but I don't know about this.

Donald Trump because he made a bet is my guess.

Who in the hell would trust someone like Sam Altman with this? Idea poacher. That's what they should call the program.

To me, this is wishful thinking. The more I see these "our jobs are safe" claims, the more I fear our jobs are not safe, and people are just trying to convince themselves which is an indicator of turmoil ahead.

- Tech layoffs grow 100% YoY

- Multiple interest rate cuts instead of 1

- News about prosecutions for insider trading on Polymarket.

- Bitcoin will touch a multi-year low. MSTR becomes insolvent.

- Google Gemini will overtake ChatGPT in DAU.

- Software will be more commoditized and the authors’ “taste” will become its primary differentiator.

- Fiserv will increase 50% or more in market cap (I said the same thing last year about PayPal, and I was wrong)

- Warren Buffett will pass away. (I hope I’m wrong) :-(

- Google will drop the price of Gemini Ultra to $125 a month or less, Anthropic and OpenAI will follow suit.

- Logitech will start making a dedicated vibe-coding microphone-whatever that means.

My mom died of cancer and had to suffer through chemo. It was in the early 2000s, so I'm curious to know if you know anything about these new chemos and what makes them different.

I have never once seen a promising cancer treatment I've heard of on the news help people. You hear about the breakthrough treatments all the time, but when people get cancer, all you ever hear about is people getting chemotherapy and radiation. Same old scary shit.

Well, I guess Leukemia has been somewhat cured I heard, so that's pretty huge. When I was a kid it was a death sentence IIRC.

It's kind of annoying when someone shows what they're working on, and the first comment is always, "Oh yeah, here's some alternatives." It feels like less like you're trying to be helpful and more like you're just kind of cheekily crapping on them. 2 cents. Maybe it would be more helpful if you were to ask how it could be different, what it improves upon. Ask if they've seen this. Something more than, "Oh yeah, here's something in addition to what this person is trying to show."

These opinions are not helpful.

Sounds like my bookshelf

…proceeds to replace junior devs with AI

I think China generally pirates all of our software in the U.S.

Someone needs to explain vendor lock-in to them.

Is this your cheeky and coy way of saying that objectivity is not possible? What's really the difference between impartiality and objectivity in this context? Sounds like you're just being a wordsmith.

That's their problem. They're trying to give people what they want instead of being objective. They're supposed to be objective. What's that you say? Their objectivity is not rewarded? Well, neither is this.

I disagree. I think the whole organization is egregious and full of Sam Altman sycophants that are causing a real and serious harm to our society. Should we not personally attack the Nazis either? These people are literally pushing for a society where you're at a complete disadvantage. And they're betting on it. They're banking on it.

Oh and you guys don't mislead people ever. Your management is just completely trustworthy, and I'm sure all you guys are too. Give me a break, man. If I were you, I would jump ship or you're going to be like a Theranos employee on LinkedIn.

I'm not interested in using OpenAI anymore because Sam Altman is so untrustworthy. All you see on X.com is him and Greg Brockman kissing David Sacks' ass, trying to make inroads with him, asking Disney for investments, and shit. Are you kidding? Who wants to support these clowns? Let's let Google win. Let's let Anthropic win. Anyone but Sam Altman.