historically when has that sort of 'tit-for-tat' style of argument ever been helpful?
the correct approach would be "we've observed first hand the problems that we've cause for society, how can we avoid creating such problems for any person in the future?"
It might seem self-serving, and it is, but 'two wrongs don't make a right'. Let's try to fix such problems rather than serving our sentence as condemned individuals.
It's not tit-for-tat, it's a wake up call. As in, what exactly do you think we've been doing with our skills and time?
> ""we've observed first hand the problems that we've cause for society"...
But not everyone agrees that this is actually a problem. There was a time when being a blacksmith or a weaver was a very highly paid profession, and as technology improved and the workforce became larger, large wages could no longer be commanded. Of course the exact same thing is going to happen to developers, at least to some extent.
How many?
> I don't think it's controversial that we become fair game for that same automation process we've been leading.
This is not correct. A human (developer) displacing another human (business person) is entirely different than a tool (AI bot) replacing a human (developer).
Regardless, this is the Lump of Labour fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy).
In this case, it is assumed that the global amount of development work is fixed, so that, if AI takes a part of it, the equivalent workforce in terms of developers, will be out of job. Especially in the field of SWE, this is obviously false.
It also needs to be seen what this technology will actually do. SWE is a complex field, way more than typing a few routines. In best case (technologically speaking) this will be an augmentation.
That's not what is happening though, a few developers replace thousands of business and industry people with automated tools. Say, automated route planning for package delivery, would take many thousands of humans if not for the AI bots that do the job instead.
> SWE is a complex field, way more than typing a few routines. In best case (technologically speaking) this will be an augmentation.
Of course there will always be some jobs for humans to do. Just like there are still jobs for humans loading thread into the automated looms and such.
But your arguments against automation displacing programming jobs ring hollow. People said the same thing about chess playing programs, they would never be able to understand the subtlety or complexity like a human could.
Without reading and understanding the lump of labour fallacy, it can't be understood the relation between the fallacy and the displacement of jobs. In short, the fallacy is not incompatible with the displacement argument; the difference is in the implications.
> But your arguments against automation displacing programming jobs ring hollow. People said the same thing about chess playing programs, they would never be able to understand the subtlety or complexity like a human could.
Chess is a finite problem, SWE isn't, so they can't be compared.
If there is a pathway to improving this AI assist efficiency say by restricting the language, methodology, UI paradigm and design principles, it will happen quick due to market incentives. The main reason SWE is complex is it's done manually in myriad subjectively preferred ways.
2. While I agree with your stance, it is not by itself sufficient. If you provide the automation but you do not correct the perverse incentives (or you worry about correcting them only later) that you mention, then you are contributing to widening the disparity between a category of workers (who have now lost their leverage) and those with assets and capital (who have a reduced need for workers).
Regardless, programmers would be hypocritical to decry having their jobs automated away.
If you're asking why do people respond the way they do to disparity, then I can only speculate that it has something to do with the meaning of life.
By your reasoning, maybe we don't need backhoes and should just hire a bunch of guys with spoons instead?
Only some software developers seem interested in replacing themselves in order to enrich their corporate masters (mains?) even further.
Just don't use this tool!
The challenge in software development is understanding the real world processes and constraints and turning them into a design for a functional & resilient system that doesn't collapse as people add every little idea that pops into their head.
If the hard part was "typing in code" then programmers would have been replaced long ago. But most people can't even verbally explain what they do as a series of steps & decision points such that a coherent and robust process can be documented. Once you have that it's easy to turn into code.
And one could argue that this means we all pay more for health and legal services than we otherwise would. You have to calculate both costs and benefits; what price does society pay for those few people having very high paying jobs?