You are witnessing the "Hyper-inflation of Syntax."
If you measure your worth by LOC (Lines of Code), you are right to be afraid. AI has driven the cost of syntax to near zero.
But here is what I see in my work with old Japanese manufacturers (Shinise):
When "Crafting" becomes cheap, "Responsibility" becomes the premium asset.
AI can write 15k lines of code, but it cannot take *Liability* for a single one.
It cannot go to jail, it cannot lose its reputation, and it cannot feel the weight of a system failure.
Your job is shifting from "Writer" to "Guardian."
Don't compete on volume (Scale). Compete on the ability to take the blame and guarantee the "Why." That is the one thing the algorithm can never optimize away.
Yeah you are right, I am underselling myself in terms of just watering it down to LOC. But I was mostly talking about tangible outcomes that are obvious.
> AI can write 15k lines of code, but it cannot take Liability for a single one.
The addiction to "visible output" (like LOC) is hard to break because it feels like work. But in the AI era, "Judgment" is the new labor.
Think of it like a traditional Japanese Hanko (seal). The value isn't in the paper or the ink (which are cheap/commodities), but in the authority of the stamp that guarantees the content.
Your "tangible result" is no longer the code itself, but the trust that comes from your seal of approval. Keep guarding.
tl;dr: Technology eliminates tasks not jobs, ie. automating routine work while making the remaining human parts more valuable: judgement, problem-solving, knowing what to build and why, communicating with a bunch of stakeholders.
This judgement and communication layer has been stubbornly hard to automate across every previous wave of tech and so it will be with this one.
Even if AI is capable of good judgement in a problem space, are the users of the AI able to ask the right questions to get it to express that judgement? (speaking from experience: no).
Banging out syntactically correct code loses value but communication and end-to-end ownership gains value; translating vague C-suite wishlists into working systems, knowing when _not_ to automate or use AI, navigating organizational constraints, understanding the domain you are working in, the organization you are working in, and directing technology in their service.
As long as there are capital owners they will have a need to exchange that capital for skilled, professional judgement in high value tasks, just the nature of what tasks are considered high value will adapt over time, as it always has.
There will always be someone whose job is to program computers to do things.
That's us, developers.
That will never change.
We're the ones dedicated to it.
Execs, managers, HR, salesmen, designers etc won't suddenly want to spend their whole days, not even half of their time, tinkering with a computer so it can do what they want.
Else Basic and Fortran would have made everyone software developers.
Yes, there will be always someone who is needed to program stuff. Totally agree with that.
But my question is "how many of those will be needed", because I am not saying that programmers are not needed.
When less numbers are needed, there will be so much competition in finding those jobs, esentially would also mean not able to find the work, as there will be always someone who would be willing to the job at lower wage and come to work with more youthful energy.
I've had a long career, and seen a number of systemic changes.
I've lived through two software "explosions" where minimal skills lead to large output. The first was web sites and the second was mobile.
Web sites are (even now) pretty easy. In the late 90's though, and early 2000's there was tremendous demand for web site creation. (Every business everywhere suddenly needed a web presence.) This lead to a massive surge in building-web-site training. No time for 3 year degree, barely time for 90 days of "click here, drag that".
So there was this huge percentage of "programmers" that had a very shallow skill set. When the bubble burst it was this group that bore the brunt.
Fast forward to 2007, and mobile apps become a "thing". Same pattern evolves, fast training, shallow understanding, apps do very little (most of the heavy lifting, if it exists at all, is on the backend.) Not a lot of time spent on UI or app flow etc.
This time around the work is also likely to be done offshore. Turns out simple skills can be taught anywhere, tiny programs can be built anywhere.
Worse, management typically didn't understand the importance of foundations like good database design, coherent code, forward thinking, maintainence etc. Programs are 10% creation, 90% maintainence (adding stuff, fixing stuff etc.) From a management point of view (and indeed from those swathes of shallow practioners) the only goal is "it works."
AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient. And just like before it first replaces people who themselves have only shallow skills; who see "coding" as the goal of their job.
We are far from the end of this cycle, and who knows where it will go, but yes, those with shallow skills are likely to be first on the chopping block.
Those with better foundations (a better understanding of good and bad, perhaps with a deeper education, or deeper experience) and the ability to communicate that value to management are positioned well.
In other words, yes the demand for "lite" developers will implode. But at the same time demand for quality devs, who can tell good from bad (design, code, ui etc) goes up.
If you are a young graduate, you're going to be light on experience. If you're and older person, but had very shallow (or no) training you're easily replaced. If you think development is code, you're not gonna do well.
In truth development is not about code (and never has been). It's about all the processes that lead up to the code. Where possible (even at college level) try and focus on upskilling on "big picture" - understanding the needs of a business, the needs of the customer, the architecture and design that results in "good" or "bad".
AI is a tool. It's important to understand when it's doing good, but also when it's doing bad.
> AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient.
That’s not the whole story and certainly not the core concern, which is more about developers who already have deep experience, using AI to multiply their output.
Exactly this. Sora 2.0 came out! It's amazing. I spent an evening with it and got bored. The amazing limitless potential of it blows my mind. But other than a couple of random attempt, thats simply not where my heart lies.
My Claude Code usage is through the roof, however.
I agree with this guy: https://obie.medium.com/what-happens-when-the-coding-becomes...
When you look at the AI as having a Jr. Developer at your disposal to do the mundane things you actually elevate yourself higher than you could individually (without the help) as you focus more on architecture and design and guide the LLM to make incremental improvements instead of decremental ones. That's my take at least.
I agree with the takes, but my only question would be.
If everyone is doing high level stuff like architecture and design, how many of "those people" will be really needed in the long term? My intuition is telling me the size of market needing number of engineers will shrink.
Of course it will shrink! Every industry ever has shrunk as tooling got better.
That said, we are a long way from "peak software". There is a lot of scope for new things, so there's room for a lot of high-level people.
And of course the vast majority of current juniors won't step up at all. Just like the web site devs of the early '00s went off to be estate agents or car salesmen or whatever. Those with shallow training are easily replaced.
The wheel will turn though, and those with a quality, deep, education focused on fundamentals (not job-training-in-xxx-language) are best placed to rise up.
There’s no consensus on whether AI-assisted coding is a revolution or smoke and mirrors. However, if it turns out to be truly revolutionary, do you think there’s anyone better than you to do the prompting? Could your boss do the work you do now? Or the CEO of your company? You seem to be positioned better than most.
I think grit and hard work will still be valuable attributes, even if AI starts producing perfect software tomorrow.
The world also just doesn't change that quickly.
Even with the most rosy projections, there is no way that software engineers are unnecessary in 2-3 years. Go have a look at METR's projections, even rosy projections aren't getting us to software that can replace engineers in a few years, let alone having that change ripple through the economy.
And nobody actually knows how far AI progress will go on the current trajectory. Moore's law was a steady march for a long time, until it wasn't.
I'm sure we'll all get replaced in a few years. But we won't be alone, the entire society is going to be upended. So we will be part of a vast social and economic experiment in which nobody (1) will be in a position much different from ours. Hopefully, solutions will be found to avoid complete social breakdown.
So I feel like I'm on the Titanic- the ship is sinking and we're going all to hit the water eventually, the trick is to try to keep dry as long as possible. If you've been in an organisation for long, and you know the business, the people, the organisation, have domain knowledge and can contribute beyond translating to code someone else's requirements... These are all valuable assets that will keep you relevant and useful for some time.
[1] except government employees in Europe. Those will never be made redundant, whatever happens.
Writing from rural Japan.
You are witnessing the "Hyper-inflation of Syntax." If you measure your worth by LOC (Lines of Code), you are right to be afraid. AI has driven the cost of syntax to near zero.
But here is what I see in my work with old Japanese manufacturers (Shinise): When "Crafting" becomes cheap, "Responsibility" becomes the premium asset.
AI can write 15k lines of code, but it cannot take *Liability* for a single one. It cannot go to jail, it cannot lose its reputation, and it cannot feel the weight of a system failure.
Your job is shifting from "Writer" to "Guardian." Don't compete on volume (Scale). Compete on the ability to take the blame and guarantee the "Why." That is the one thing the algorithm can never optimize away.
Yeah you are right, I am underselling myself in terms of just watering it down to LOC. But I was mostly talking about tangible outcomes that are obvious.
> AI can write 15k lines of code, but it cannot take Liability for a single one.
Thanks for writing this, I needed it.
Glad it resonated.
The addiction to "visible output" (like LOC) is hard to break because it feels like work. But in the AI era, "Judgment" is the new labor.
Think of it like a traditional Japanese Hanko (seal). The value isn't in the paper or the ink (which are cheap/commodities), but in the authority of the stamp that guarantees the content.
Your "tangible result" is no longer the code itself, but the trust that comes from your seal of approval. Keep guarding.
Good paper from 2015: "Why Are There Still So Many Jobs? The History and Future of Workplace Automation": https://economics.mit.edu/sites/default/files/inline-files/W...
tl;dr: Technology eliminates tasks not jobs, ie. automating routine work while making the remaining human parts more valuable: judgement, problem-solving, knowing what to build and why, communicating with a bunch of stakeholders.
This judgement and communication layer has been stubbornly hard to automate across every previous wave of tech and so it will be with this one.
Even if AI is capable of good judgement in a problem space, are the users of the AI able to ask the right questions to get it to express that judgement? (speaking from experience: no).
Banging out syntactically correct code loses value but communication and end-to-end ownership gains value; translating vague C-suite wishlists into working systems, knowing when _not_ to automate or use AI, navigating organizational constraints, understanding the domain you are working in, the organization you are working in, and directing technology in their service.
As long as there are capital owners they will have a need to exchange that capital for skilled, professional judgement in high value tasks, just the nature of what tasks are considered high value will adapt over time, as it always has.
There will always be someone whose job is to program computers to do things.
That's us, developers. That will never change. We're the ones dedicated to it.
Execs, managers, HR, salesmen, designers etc won't suddenly want to spend their whole days, not even half of their time, tinkering with a computer so it can do what they want.
Else Basic and Fortran would have made everyone software developers.
Do you feel calmer now? (:
"Else Basic and Fortran would have made everyone software developers."
I think you mean COBOL instead of Fortran? COBOL is a beautiful language, one of the most human readable ones we've ever had.
Yes, there will be always someone who is needed to program stuff. Totally agree with that.
But my question is "how many of those will be needed", because I am not saying that programmers are not needed.
When less numbers are needed, there will be so much competition in finding those jobs, esentially would also mean not able to find the work, as there will be always someone who would be willing to the job at lower wage and come to work with more youthful energy.
Just speaking out loud.
I've had a long career, and seen a number of systemic changes.
I've lived through two software "explosions" where minimal skills lead to large output. The first was web sites and the second was mobile.
Web sites are (even now) pretty easy. In the late 90's though, and early 2000's there was tremendous demand for web site creation. (Every business everywhere suddenly needed a web presence.) This lead to a massive surge in building-web-site training. No time for 3 year degree, barely time for 90 days of "click here, drag that".
So there was this huge percentage of "programmers" that had a very shallow skill set. When the bubble burst it was this group that bore the brunt.
Fast forward to 2007, and mobile apps become a "thing". Same pattern evolves, fast training, shallow understanding, apps do very little (most of the heavy lifting, if it exists at all, is on the backend.) Not a lot of time spent on UI or app flow etc.
This time around the work is also likely to be done offshore. Turns out simple skills can be taught anywhere, tiny programs can be built anywhere.
Worse, management typically didn't understand the importance of foundations like good database design, coherent code, forward thinking, maintainence etc. Programs are 10% creation, 90% maintainence (adding stuff, fixing stuff etc.) From a management point of view (and indeed from those swathes of shallow practioners) the only goal is "it works."
AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient. And just like before it first replaces people who themselves have only shallow skills; who see "coding" as the goal of their job.
We are far from the end of this cycle, and who knows where it will go, but yes, those with shallow skills are likely to be first on the chopping block.
Those with better foundations (a better understanding of good and bad, perhaps with a deeper education, or deeper experience) and the ability to communicate that value to management are positioned well.
In other words, yes the demand for "lite" developers will implode. But at the same time demand for quality devs, who can tell good from bad (design, code, ui etc) goes up.
If you are a young graduate, you're going to be light on experience. If you're and older person, but had very shallow (or no) training you're easily replaced. If you think development is code, you're not gonna do well.
In truth development is not about code (and never has been). It's about all the processes that lead up to the code. Where possible (even at college level) try and focus on upskilling on "big picture" - understanding the needs of a business, the needs of the customer, the architecture and design that results in "good" or "bad".
AI is a tool. It's important to understand when it's doing good, but also when it's doing bad.
> AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient.
That’s not the whole story and certainly not the core concern, which is more about developers who already have deep experience, using AI to multiply their output.
Exactly this. Sora 2.0 came out! It's amazing. I spent an evening with it and got bored. The amazing limitless potential of it blows my mind. But other than a couple of random attempt, thats simply not where my heart lies.
My Claude Code usage is through the roof, however.
I agree with this guy: https://obie.medium.com/what-happens-when-the-coding-becomes... When you look at the AI as having a Jr. Developer at your disposal to do the mundane things you actually elevate yourself higher than you could individually (without the help) as you focus more on architecture and design and guide the LLM to make incremental improvements instead of decremental ones. That's my take at least.
This one also: https://terriblesoftware.org/2025/12/11/ai-can-write-your-co...
I agree with the takes, but my only question would be.
If everyone is doing high level stuff like architecture and design, how many of "those people" will be really needed in the long term? My intuition is telling me the size of market needing number of engineers will shrink.
Of course it will shrink! Every industry ever has shrunk as tooling got better.
That said, we are a long way from "peak software". There is a lot of scope for new things, so there's room for a lot of high-level people.
And of course the vast majority of current juniors won't step up at all. Just like the web site devs of the early '00s went off to be estate agents or car salesmen or whatever. Those with shallow training are easily replaced.
The wheel will turn though, and those with a quality, deep, education focused on fundamentals (not job-training-in-xxx-language) are best placed to rise up.
There’s no consensus on whether AI-assisted coding is a revolution or smoke and mirrors. However, if it turns out to be truly revolutionary, do you think there’s anyone better than you to do the prompting? Could your boss do the work you do now? Or the CEO of your company? You seem to be positioned better than most.
I think grit and hard work will still be valuable attributes, even if AI starts producing perfect software tomorrow.
The world also just doesn't change that quickly.
Even with the most rosy projections, there is no way that software engineers are unnecessary in 2-3 years. Go have a look at METR's projections, even rosy projections aren't getting us to software that can replace engineers in a few years, let alone having that change ripple through the economy.
And nobody actually knows how far AI progress will go on the current trajectory. Moore's law was a steady march for a long time, until it wasn't.
I'm sure we'll all get replaced in a few years. But we won't be alone, the entire society is going to be upended. So we will be part of a vast social and economic experiment in which nobody (1) will be in a position much different from ours. Hopefully, solutions will be found to avoid complete social breakdown.
So I feel like I'm on the Titanic- the ship is sinking and we're going all to hit the water eventually, the trick is to try to keep dry as long as possible. If you've been in an organisation for long, and you know the business, the people, the organisation, have domain knowledge and can contribute beyond translating to code someone else's requirements... These are all valuable assets that will keep you relevant and useful for some time.
[1] except government employees in Europe. Those will never be made redundant, whatever happens.