> I've seen nothing from AI, either in production or on the horizon, that suggests that it will meaningfully lower the barrier to entry for practicing the profession, let alone enable non developers to do the work developers do.
Good observation. Come to think of it, all examples of AI coding require a competent human to hold the other end, or else it makes subtle errors.
How many humans do you need per project though? The number can only lower as AI tooling improves. And will employers pay the same rates when they’re already paying a sub for their AI tools and the work involved is so much more high level?
I don’t claim to have any particular prescience here, but doesn’t this assume that the scope of “software” remains static? The potential universe of programmatically implementable solutions is vast. Just so happens that many or most of those potential future verticals are not commercially viable in 2024.
Exactly. Custom software is currently very expensive. Making it cheaper to produce will presumably increase demand for it. Whether this results in more or fewer unemployed SWEs, and if I'll be one of them, I don't know.
Good observation. Come to think of it, all examples of AI coding require a competent human to hold the other end, or else it makes subtle errors.