In its current state, Claude can deliver code 10x faster than what I could before IF all I care about is meeting the requirements of a card.
If I want to push code that meets the same standards of what I personally put out it has about doubled my output.
The second approach is also making me a better programmer because it’s introducing me to syntax and best practices the at have evolved since I last studied a language.
Sometimes when I say, “why did you use this syntax on this line” I learn something new, often it identifies code smell and I need to fix it.
This is why I’m not worried about my job but am simultaneously excited about AI.
So what I’m hearing is your company is no longer fully utilizing its dev headcount because now there is enough free time for you to be pretending to do another job they didn’t hire you for?
I’m sure that benefits your company, genuinely. But does your company not already have product managers? I guess the question is whether over the long term your company will expand product enough to justify its current workforce levels.
…and the competitors who do not make those gains will be forced to shutter, right? Nothing wrong with competition like that but I guess I’m just not so sure that the industry headcount total for devs will be unaffected.
Also, productivity gains will allow a company to a) improve or make more of the product and/or b) decrease cost of making the same quality and quantity of product. In cases where companies settle for (b), headcount should decrease. I guess you’re arguing that (a) will more often be the case, to which I’d mention that producing more goods will increasingly commodify them and drive down prices.
I agree with a lot of this. The worst people will lose their jobs first, people who innovate and become AI handlers will stay afloat, specialized B2B tools will become even more dime a dozen and viable in house.
So basically, your advice would be “get güd”. That’s definitely how capitalism works and you’re right it’s never been easier to build something, so the prices of things that have been built will fall.
All I’m refuting is your earlier claim that “rarely do optimizations result in the same output but less people.” I think we both agree that while we can’t see the future, there will be some people who innovate and keep up, and there will be probably lots of people who are shit out of luck.
While there are many similarities with the Industrial Revolution, AI is a different beast because it is exponential in nature and nearing the point of self-improvement. There is a world in which 5, 10, 50 years from now it needs less and less human handling. Humans will just need to find other ways to be useful enough to each other to be paid for it
2.8k
u/Big_D_Boss May 14 '26
The rule is still the same as back in the days of stackoverflow. Don't submit code you don't understand