> We won't see a gas station clerk write photoshop because we won't need a photoshop.
100% agree. People are looking at the future through the lenses of the current paradigm just like when people from the past imagined the future (our present) in a way which we now find hilarious. Most of the time, the future doesn't bring developments which improve an action in a scalar way (faster, shorter, stronger, etc) but instead fundamentally change the nature of that action (handwritten letter communication vs video calls) or completely override the need for it (telephone boxes vs mobile phones).
And the issue here is that this future is bringing fundamental change to the nautre of labor without overriding the need for compensation in order to house and feed the populace. Hence the rejection.
But if I can clarify my point. It's more that I'm trying to say "Company promises A is happening and B is the necessary consequences to achieve it".
I do not believe A is happening but B is occurring despite that, in order to achieve hidden agenda C. Though in this case, C is not that hidden since every other article has them blabbing out loud about "wow it's going to be so amazing when C happens!"
here,
A = AI is making us more productive than ever
B = This will cause impacts on jobs and the economy as a whole as we realign what labor is
C = Companies make more money than ever as it works towards eliminating labor on massive (90+%) levels in order to maximize profits and moating the idea of knowledge itself
> If you think A is not happening for a software engineer's role, then you are mistaken.
En masse, I argue not. More productivity for engineers would not be met with mass layoffs if engineering production was why value was being added. On the contrary, other industries have had to hire back talent becsuse companies were too aggressive cutting people and needed that work to be done.
But I'm not an oracle. I can only speak for what I see today and won't predict tomorrow. Especially in these trying times.
100% agree. People are looking at the future through the lenses of the current paradigm just like when people from the past imagined the future (our present) in a way which we now find hilarious. Most of the time, the future doesn't bring developments which improve an action in a scalar way (faster, shorter, stronger, etc) but instead fundamentally change the nature of that action (handwritten letter communication vs video calls) or completely override the need for it (telephone boxes vs mobile phones).