all 19 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 11 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I've been ringing this bell to everyone I know ever since I started using Cursor. Nobody's gonna hire entry-level devs for the next 5 years, and I don't know what happens when we need mid-level devs after that.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago

    They will work their senior devs to death, continuously offering more money to forgo their retirement until the AI can replace them and eventually code becomes a lost language to us that only the machines can understand.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    I mean, the answer is simple. You teach people how to code better. That is literally the point of education - to teach people to do things so they don't have to learn on the job via trial and error.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 year ago

    Even if there wasn't AI taking people's jobs, what left is there to develop?

    It feels like there already was a natural contraction of the industry after the increase in interest rates. I feel like AI is more of a smoke screen for executives to justify loss of headcount.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago

    We've had the technology to create a post-scarcity world for decades, but we persist in the idea that some people have to suffer for society to function

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    Thats my thoughts. Its going to kill entry level anything, thereby moving more wealth upwards to the already-haves. So if you dont own anything now, youre never going to. Get used to it.

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago

    That's pretty much the goal. The minimum wage laws prevent companies from lowering wages past a certain point, AI eliminates that problem. And really, the mid and high-level jobs aren't exactly safe, either, even if they seem so now.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    It wont tho. The tech bro bubble inflaters would love it, but realistically AI wont "take" any jobs because its not capable of doing them. Bosses might fire the workers anyways, but not much later they will find out that nothing will work anymore and rehire them.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Unfortunately i just don't think this is true. We have already seen automated phone systems take over call centers and AI chatbots take over some tech support roles. There will be kinks in the system but overall there will be a net loss of jobs to AI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Seems like you are saying "because we invented the train, now there are no more jobs for carriage drivers."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What I'm saying is AI has already proven to replace at least a couple of tasks if not entire existing jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Right, but it doesn't follow that there is a net loss of jobs.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you are producing X with 20 people, and AI reduces the burden on each of them by 10%, what do you think is more likely:

    • they start producing 10% more product (despite constant demand), or

    • they reduce their costs by 10%?

    Obviously not every position gets eliminated - some of those companies will produce more, instead. But to claim there's no net loss of jobs is just plain silly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The number of jobs to produce X decreases by 10%.

    Increased available labor then shifts to producing Y.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So there's no net job loss because the people who are laid off will eventually find new jobs? What on earth?

    Given that mindset, then is all unemployment just fake? After all, they should just be finding a new job

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Um, yes? Of course, there is a time scale to everything, but yes, that is what "net" means. If someone loses a job and then gets another, then net job loss is 0.

    The unemployment rate goes up and down all the time for any number of reasons. Maybe AI will make it go up for a bit. But based on past trends, we can assume it will go back down again. It is unlikely we will end up in "end of the world, ai has taken all the jobs" territory any time soon.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)