If there are no humans looking at the excel anymore, why is it needed? My guess is all of this office software gets replaced by stuff that looks a lot more low level and controlled by agents, and just converted to a nice view when a human wants to look for some reason.
The fear isn’t about now, it’s about trajectory. Everyone’s existential dread would evaporate if this is where it stops.
The dread is: where does this stop? Right now, with ai I can fly. But when does ai no longer need me? Just as an extreme example: a this pace, how far are we from “AI agent, here’s our assets, make money”? If every year 50% of the job disappears, how long until there is no human-ai team, just ai.
Idk, this conversation is endlessly frustrating, because people seem to have so much certainty one way or another about the future. Fear comes from not knowing more than anything.
Yeah, some people are is saying "Oh coding is solved, but we still need people to guide the architecture."
But coding was "solved" by self-play against "small" problems. Is there any reason training couldn't be scaled up to even longer horizon tasks like evolving an architecture in a growing business? The increasing load from a growing business, both in terms of usage and product accretion, can be entirely simulated in a data-center, and therefore trained against.
There is a sort of conceit here that tech is everything. There doesn't need to be "no jobs", it could just (or mostly) be the tech sector that is impacted and jobs are displaced. In the history of concentrated sector losses, the US public hasn't been kind to those displaced. The world marches on, no matter how important we think we are.
You are right, my answer was meant for parent's "“AI agent, here’s our assets, make money”" and "If every year 50% of the job disappears, how long until there is no human-ai team, just ai.". I mean it in a broader sense than just IT workers. The world will be fine without us if that's where it all stops.
If at some point most enterprises run as "agent, make me money" without any humans, then money is a dead concept.
Why does that matter? b2b sector doesn't make any sense if there is no "clients" at some end point. There is no money in the end of the chain if everybody is jobless. And if 99% of the population don't have magic numbers, the magic numbers concept just doesn't make sense.
The whole modern society and capitalism exist on assumption of meritocracy: an entrepreneur takes the risks and provides the organization and gets the reward. If there is some perfect machine that always brings profits, there is no risk. Everybody can make such "organization" saying "/goal make me money". The current model also assumes that if you learn and work hard enough, then you get a success of some level. That assumption of the meritocracy also breaks.
If there is no organizational work, nor risks, nor meritocracy, nor "fair reward for hard work" the whole model fades. There are might be different rational choices. One is probably to liquidate the owners of the companies; nationalize the model's output and distribute the profits, for example. Still many questions about everyday life for completely jobless society will arrive then. It might be something else, but people generally do what they see fair, and they also want to eat something.
Ownership is a fragile idea, Russian Empire shows that pretty clearly. It exists only when most of the society agrees that the ownership is fair or when you have enough force to maintain it against those who don't, which is not the case when the majority is on the other side.
You are packing so many assumptions into here about how the world works that are just wrong, I have no way to really respond.
Your strongest point is “will people stand for a world with no jobs, where only a percentage of the population owns most things?” And the answer is who knows, people stand for a massive amount of inequality right now, and technology for suppressing the masses is getting much better every year. It’s a big unknown imo, and probably contingent on too many things to predict at all.
So far LLM’s have been really bad at creating the most important things in life. Like food, shelter, security, electricity, water, medical breakthroughs, better politics, better connection etc. etc. etc.
So AI’s will have some impact on the economy but it’s debatable how much and how long it will take.
We use money to exchange resources (actual or promised) in form of credit to each other.
If most of the population doesn't participate in the exchange, money is worthless. You can make numbers, but those are meaningless without the underlying exchange.
It's effectively a disruption of a modern society.
There is no way of redistributing those resources but violence if there is no economy.
Say, you have 98 people who have literally nothing and no established way to obtain basic needs, and 2 people who has something based on whatever.
Say, these 2 people can close their needs by asking a magic machine to do something for them, or even exchange some goods between each other, but there is no economic sense to hire anybody.
Those 98 left aren't going to sit and die, watching.
No but what if those 2 hand out bread and circuses, use the super-intelligence they can afford (using super intelligence smarter than anyone alive) to keep the masses controlled, and are protected by all of the wonderful new machines of war (like ai controlled autonomous drones).
Also what if it’s not 2 vs 98, but something more like 10 vs 90, or 30 vs 70? Or 50 vs 50?
And this kind of thing doesn’t happen overnight. It happens over a generation, or at least a few decades.
Anyway, the point isn’t this will happen, the point is that really bad outcomes that are almost impossible to walk back from are completely within the realm of possibility. And we have no real way to predict where we’re headed. So people are rightly very afraid.
I still am opposed to anything capable of mass surveillance because of how easily it is abused. But living in Seattle, my car has been broken into 4 times this summer alone (with nothing taken, because we leave nothing there), thiefs dug up the side of my house to steel copper wires, on my block someone dumped gasoline all over a tree and lit it on fire just because, people went around the neighborhood smashing front flower pots, many of the local businesses have had their windows smashed by robbers twice this year. Last year someone broke into my garage using a lock pick and stole a bunch of tools and my car license plate (and the cops actually caught him because he was driving in the hov lane with my reported-stolen license plate on lol).
My wife is at the point where she would probably like a flock camera on our street. I’m at the point where I wouldn’t mind a patrol car circling the area, like a damn police state. What else would you suggest people support when they are harassed by crime this much?
(Edit to expand): instead of just complaining I’ll meta-point. People will vote for things like flock cameras when society is unsafe, or they feel unsafe. Right now, in the USA, lots of places are visibly unsafe and people deal with actual threats from bad actors much more often than they deal with police overreach. If you want people to vote against mass surveillance then you need to support policy that makes mass surveillance unnecessary, and you need to do it now instead of “in a future communist utopia there will be no crime” kind of policy (I use this because it’s what I see a lot of in Seattle). Weak on crime is anti-urban, weak on crime is pro police state.
> I wouldn’t mind a patrol car circling the area, like a damn police state.
Very strange that Americans now view a patrolling policeman as a "police state". After all, a strolling constabulary (which would drive in the US since no one walks) was part of even the 19th-century progressive "policing by consent" model that is still well regarded today.
This is much easier fixed by judges actually locking up career criminals but they're so "empathetic" they let lunatics run freely and terrorize communities.
> What else would you suggest proper support when they are harassed by crime this much?
How would a flock camera deter a thief from breaking into your garage? It's a false sense of security. I had a guy break into two tenant spaces with a screwdriver with cameras pointed all over the place. He just wore a surgical mask and hood while keeping his head down. Nothing could ID him. I had all the locks upgraded and one tenant installed an alarm system. That's all we can do.
A better question to ask is why is there so much blatant and rampant crime? Have you attended any community meetings with local representatives and voiced concerns? Have you spoke to your neighbors about these incidents (do you know your neighbors?) Maybe you live in an area who's government takes some silly light handed approach to policing, justice and reform. You either deal with it or move.
“You either deal with it or move” do you think installing flock cameras isn’t an attempt to deal with it? If you go to council meetings and demand action, installing a bunch of flock cameras and increasing surveillance is a response.
I say this as someone who agrees, cameras don’t work much. But my point is that people had better support some alternative then, instead of blocking every other attempt to improve the situation.
> do you think installing flock cameras isn’t an attempt to deal with it?
It's not dealing with it because its lazy passive action where citizens shrug responsibility off to a 3rd party who only cares about making money and not the people on the other end. Nothing actually happens because cameras won't deter anything and only increase the ability for the government to abuse people.
Dealing with it means learning from the past and taking action. If the lock on your garage was picked then harden the garage lock. If your car was broken into then maybe it's safer in the garage. Buy your own motion sensing cameras with remote viewing. Install security bars or security windows and doors. Motion sensing lights all over. You either sit around and cry for someone else to magically fix the crime problem or defend your possessions.
> You’re right, I shouldn’t expect laws and enforcement.
And from the original description it certainly sounds like you are living in an area where there is no enforcement. That is clearly a failure of you local municipality of which you are a part of. Now with that in mind, again, tell me how flock cameras are going to fix a seemingly non-functional government and police department?
> What a load of bullshit victim blaming.
If your local government isn't doing anything then you need to step up and protect yourself in its absence. Sorry if reality sucks.
This whole story you tell is the same for lots of places. It's the tell of a failing state who cannot provide for their people.
Hard/bad/no jobs? People will steal. And the thefts may cost $3000 to replace, but $300 in theft goods.
And even if you have a good job, inflation and US citizens getting fucked over by trump tariffs and inflation makes every year that much harder.
And when you KNOW the folks at the top (either party) are cheating, have always cheated, and will continue to do so - why the hell should I follow the law? It can be tax cheating, or copyright infringement, cutting down Flock (YC17) scameras, or more.
And when you KNOW you don't have any upward mobility and are stuck socioeconomically, well, it leads to what you see.
If we look at China, they have a whole different set of problems. The simpletons here will just bemoan 'Communist China' and are stuck in a McCarthyism mindset.
Seattle is one of the wealthiest metros in the country, with expansive social programs. It's the last place where you can try and blame crime on deprivation.
Do humans without lawns consume that much water? Have you worked on something where this problem came up in some unexpected way? Yes pipes need to be updated if a lot of tall complexes are built, but is total water that much at all?
I asked Claude to do the math, and it claimed reducing alfalfa use (not all use, just alfalfa) by the Colorado river by 1% per 1 million people who move from a place not already supplied by it.
I think when it comes to water a really important mental model everyone needs to have is that a human without a lawn or pool uses really tiny amounts of water at scale directly.
Any tips for how you planned your landscape to work this way? I’m slowly trying to convert mine but have already gotten burned by not matching plants to the right soil or sun exposure level and it’s taking longer to get right than I expected.
I just told the landscaper don't put any pesticides or herbicides and let nature do its thing. My landscaper just takes care of the front lawn, shrubs and the road verge and is cheap enough to pay for the twice month trim and clean up. My yard is a wild jungle where I do basic clean up and pull all the rag weed. I do want to plant a lot of native wild flowers at some point.
Why do they even need to do that? It could be all open and you still can’t compete. The models could be all completely open weight forever and you still can’t compete with capital.
How are you going to pay for the models or the electricity or the hardware? How are you going to compete against a swarm of ai agents that were spun up 6 months before you with 100x the capital whatever small amount of capital you scraped together doing one of the last few human jobs? Not with your human intelligence, which is now useless compared to machine intelligence. Maybe with luck, but at that point we’re all just at the casino.
I'm feeling the same way, and when I brought it up to some friends in tech it turned out in our group of 8 I was the least depressed.
The wife of another friend of mine confided in me that AI replacing his work in such a short time has made him depressed to the point she's getting scared he'll hurt himself.
I think we need a support group or something. But I'm too busy burning the candle at both ends trying to "catch the lifeboat" before its too late. So are most other engineers I know.
I'm sorry you're going through this but know not only are you not alone, but you're in the majority of software developers at this point (I think, anecdotally).
Thanks for writing this. This is how support groups start, when people find out that they're not the only ones going through this.
When I opened up to friends (and wrote that post), it encouraged a whole lot of people to also open up. We shared tricks, talked it out, and just felt a little bit more seen.
In my family, about 5 out of 100 people believe climate change is even real. So ya, I think the average at this point is "I'm ambivalent, climate change may not even be real. But mostly I don't care"
The poorest in society are the lowest CO2 emitters - they don't fly often, many don't own a car and use public transport - they can't afford meat in every meal - can't afford air con in summer or heating in winter.
Conversely, the wealthiest are frequent flyers, are chauffeured about in SUVs and rarely walk. They have everything they'll ever need and don't concern themselves about running the AC or heating.
They're preaching to the poor guy about what he needs to do to stop climate change.
Even if the poor guy wanted to care, he can't do much, but the people who claim to care could do a lot more, if they really did care.
The media circus tries to put the blame on the poor, while ignoring the emissions of the celebrities and treating them as royalty. Is it any wonder most people simply don't care?
If the media cared, they would be making villains of the celebrities and idols of the poor.
If you’re talking about a world democracy like the USA, the consumption gap between rich and poor effectively doesn’t matter from a climate change perspective. You could vanish the top 75% of Americans and still we’d have a climate change problem (albeit less of one for sure).
People get confused by some of the research because it often publishes emissions by who owns the asset emitting and not who consumes it (eg Starr et al paper breaks down both, and consumption vs ownership is wildly different, and you can tell what bent people have by which number they pick to report on…)
Another way I’d put it: if you’re not ready for gas to be $40/gallon and beef to be $100/lb ground, then you’re not really ready to fight climate change. And no one is, so it’s not going to happen unless we get a technology miracle.
Lots of things are wealth gap problems. Climate change is not, it’s an everyone problem.
If you live in a western democracy your politicians are held very accountable to the opinion and will of the people who vote. They are not kings or inherited aristocracy, they do what the people want (roughly) or get voted out.
The people who vote by-and-large don't believe climate change is real, don't believe it is serious, or are not willing to tolerate the level of discomfort necessary to solve the problem.
At least in my country, politician's hands are completely utterly tied from fighting climate change, because if they do something serious enough to actually matter they will immediately be voted out of office and whatever they did rolled back.
Here in America we love to blame the politicians (they do indeed suck). All the while voter turnout is a complete joke. Perhaps this is actually helpful, because we are rife with various subcultures that openly celebrate ignorance, so, yeah. Blame the shitty politicians, speak not of the ignorant and unbothered masses.
To be fair, the US electoral system is designed to discourage or outright disenfranchise most voters:
* First-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections ensure that anyone who isn't living in a swing state/district may as well not bother.
* Heavy gerrymandering exacerbates this effect.
* Voter suppression tactics like attacking mail-in ballots and closing voting locations makes it more difficult for those people who still want to vote. Note that Voter ID laws are included in this because there still live today people who were denied birth certificates due to segregation-era hospitals refusing non-white mothers delivery care.
* Holding elections on non-holiday weekdays makes it harder for those living paycheck-to-paycheck and working hourly jobs, though this is blunted somewhat by states which allow early voting.
If you live in a Western democracy your politicians are very accountable to media owners and corporate donors. Voters are a very long way down the influence list, because media owners and corporate donors have sophisticated and very expensive - but high ROI - ways to shape voter opinion.
Some are simple censorship - like X and FB throttling the reach of unwanted content and promoting the reach of the opposite.
Others appear believably organic.
The obvious ones are crude, but they still work on huge swathes of the population.
The first step to recovery is to accept that this is how the system really works, and the idea that voters pick leaders based on a rational consideration of their record and potential benefits is absolute fantasy.
That's mostly a feature of elections with single-member districts or other winner-take-all mechanisms. Every successful politician must have a wide coalition behind them, and marginal groups that could back either major candidate determine the winner.
Proportional elections have different dynamics, especially if elected candidates are determined by personal votes (and not by predetermined ranks on the party list). A successful politician mostly needs to find a niche and maintain their visibility and support within that niche.
There is absolutely nothing that will end American democracy faster than jailing Trump. The moment it becomes clear that the cost of losing is personal jail time for you and your family, every politician in the game has to start playing for blood, and everyone with power has to chose rubicon or jail.
If Trump goes to prison, that’s when I leave, because that will be the moment historians point to as “no going back”.
The United States isn't a monarchy, we fought a whole war to establish that. Our leaders aren't meant to be above the law. If our "democracy" can't survive putting even a President in jail for their crimes than it doesn't deserve to survive.
And I reject your premise that putting one's leaders in jail will only lead to an infinite spiral of partisan kangaroo courts because other democracies manage to hold their leaders to legal account without going into a death spiral.
And it's honestly weird and more than a bit disturbing how controversial that simple concept has become. I guess we really do want kings here.
But... that's still perfectly legal, isn't it? All of these little backdoors the founding fathers added to the executive as some vestigial organ of monarchical
power just because they couldn't trust the people in "we the people" maybe should be reconsidered. If we don't want presidents to be able to pardon themselves and anyone else without limit, there are ways to make that happen. Never even bothering to convict any president of a crime doesn't even attempt to fix that problem however.
Pack the Supreme Court, rule them invalid, and proceed with the plan. Also, you know that "the same way Biden did" is under a completely different situation than this.
and do other countries really put their criminal official in jail? do they establish any kind of restitution to the victims?
can you really point to a single government where they dont illegally communicate outside of logged channels, or any such things, to scam the voters? or where they intentionally promise something they have zero intention of keeping, or lying about whether its possible. and of course some such things are not considered crimes because the very people who would then be violating the law would be the ones who MAKE the law.
the vast majority of politicians worldwide are super criminals doing things that if you or I did even 1/100 what they did, they would lock us up and throw away the keys.
> He’s seen by at least 50% of the population as completely valid.
This is laughable.
He never hit 50% in the popular vote, and that doesn’t count the ‘none of the above/don’t care’ non-voters. That was at the peak of the oligarch-funded campaign that saw record-smashing spending and advertising to gin up support.
His popularity immediately fell after the election and has been sliding the entire time he’s been in office. A majority of voters supported his impeachment shortly after he started the Iran war in back April and he’s even more unpopular now.
Unless Trump does something egregious enough in the coming years that the case against him is rock solid, black and white, and heavy, any move to jail him and those around him is impossible to distinguish from political targeting. I have not seen evidence of something out of line enough, no matter what Reddit hive mind thinks.
So with the knowledge I have, I’d say any serious push to jail him and his team would be terrifying. If we get crystal evidence of bribery that holds up in court and is clear enough to sway a large swath of Republicans, then that’s great. Still a worse outcome than there not being something black and white to nail him with, but I think that case democracy survives. But not “trumped up” charges.
It’s a good thing that they’ve committed many blatant and easily provable criminal acts then. The type you spend the rest of your life in prison for, if you’re not being protected by captured systems. Market manipulation, insider trading, embezzlement are all happening obviously and publicly, just to start. Bribery and corruption at many levels, illegal use of things like ICE, illegal detention, ignoring and abusing courts and the judicial system, whatever the hell they’re doing with crypto, the list is basically whatever crime you can think of.
I understand you, and that it will mean republicans and their base won’t be swayed, which will create huge problems. But we’re well past the point that anything would ever sway them. There’s no easy way out now, the choice is being increasingly abused by them forever or taking the hits now to stop it. Pulling punches now will only ensure that it comes back 10x worse later.
If I had to guess at anything it would be bribery, market manipulation, and crypto related business. The others I just don’t see even making it through, there is way too much room for interpretation of powers.
“Pulling punches now will only ensure that it comes back 10x worse later” and using punches will what, subdue? This is half the political power of America you’re talking about punching. Republicans will what, roll over? You think democrats win handily enough to end it?
It escalates the blood feud. The way out of a blood feud is de-escalation, amnesty, forgiveness, working together. Not demanding more blood, even if you think it is perfectly justified.
I generally believe that, but there is such a thing as “too far”.
Your (I’m assuming well intentioned) arguments are those that people abusing power trot out whenever it suits them, because it works so well to get them off the hook when the people they’re abusing are decent human beings. “Now that we’ve tried our best to destroy things, don’t you think it’s important we all forgive and forget?”
I also think you’re taking my point to mean punishing republican voters, which I’m not. I’m talking about upholding and enforcing laws against the politicians and their accomplices in the party, as they’re intended to be. Rather than taking the less confrontational path of letting it all slide after they lose power. That’s how this mess started in the first place.
His approval rating is somewhere between 30%-35% depending on the poll. So no it's not 50%.
> You’re just as bad as Trump.
No, Trump's 2nd term is in the running for most corrupt administration in American history. Even what Nixon did would just be another scandal for this administration that would leave the news cycle in a couple weeks.
He, or at least his officials and family need to be held accountable. That is the right, just and Constitutional thing to do.
Right, we've already crossed the parent commenter's "no going back point" if we can't hold our leaders accountable. We instead have a king with a different title.
My point isn’t “president should be above law”. My point is that, if Trump and admin go to prison on charges that are not so strong that it sways a large portion of the public and republicans, we’re fucked. Regardless of the underlying truth of the case, regardless of what I think is just or unjust, we’re fucked. Because unless it’s convincing enough that republicans also agree, then it’s death spiral.
So I’m hoping the justice department either doesn’t have enough of a case to convict, or has enough of a case that the whole country falls in line. The in between, it’s time to get out. Because shit will go downhill very fast.
> Because unless it’s convincing enough that republicans also agree, then it’s death spiral.
So what you're saying is that the Republicans would become an angry party consisting of those who embrace impunity for their politicians regardless of the brazenness with which they break the law.
It’s reasonably clear to anyone paying attention that Trump has been systematically engaging in various flavours of corruption. Prosecuting the man for illegal activities isn’t predicated on his party losing an election; it would be a matter of law. If you cannot support upholding the law because of some fear that MAGA would revolt, then the downfall you predict isn’t a remote event, it’s already here.
> The moment it becomes clear that the cost of losing is personal jail time for you and your family
That has always been clear, seeing how it is the default mode of operation for empires throughout history. The solution here is separation of powers: the ruler itself is bound by rules and institutions that provide a check on their power, and in turn those institutions protect the ruler after stepping down.
It is Trump and the Republican party that chose to abandon that solution. There already is no going back from that choice.
Every single time I see an article like this come out on hacker news I have the same reaction “sure, this year”.
There is still room for juniors… in fall of 2026. Will there be in fall of 2030? If your thesis rests on LLMs and AI systems not dramatically improving over where they are today, is it worth anything?
The real value of a junior engineer is that they will become a senior. That's really always been the case IME. Juniors in the first year or two of their career are routinely a net negative, maybe break even. But the thing is, unless you're making the bet that LLMs are going to _entirely_ replace human SWE, we as an industry have to maintain a pipeline to take in juniors and level them up. If we don't, we're going to be in real trouble in about 10 years.
I'll take the other side of that. Was there room for juniors in 2020? In 1950? What was the value of a junior in a world where programming was done in assembly? How much reliable work - how much value - could you get from them? Probably less than their salary.
Now, you could argue that those were days when people moved jobs a lot less, so a junior was an investment for the company, even if they weren't worth their salary yet. And that's true to at least some degree. Still, that means that what changed isn't the value of juniors, but companies' willingness to invest in the future.
In 2020 they could code to decent feature specs and handle simple features end to end. They could maintain the dashboard as features shipped and fix specific valuable but straightforward bugs. At least, the ones hired at any company I’ve worked for.
This same work that ai agents already do better. Now only the top juniors are really still worth it, the ones with more nebulous ownership, communication, synthesis, drive skills. And even these I think are on their way to being consumed by ai, unless the curve flattens (totally possible too). I think my only point is that the world is moving so fast that so many “optimistic about the field” posts I see basically assume we’ve reached the end of ai agent and system capabilities. If we have then great. But I find it a really unlikely bet.
reply