Programming

it can barely get single functions correct but we're supposed to believe it can write entire systems from a single prompt? Either way our job at the moment is writing instructions for another piece of software (compiler) to turn into the code. This just adds another level of abstraction. High level programming languages already let us do more with fewer staff. It didn't make coders redundant, it let to even more software.

edit: forgot to add, agree with your edit, that or just trying to inflate their stock prices.

Yep, it's blatant attempts to decrease costs of employment. Just like outsourcing various tech jobs, automated phone trees, and every business tech "no code required" automation/workflow platform ever devised.

Convince people they can do more with your particular flavor of less. Charge them enough that they save money on the books but you make a profit through them using your toolkit.

At the end of the day, you will always still need someone to fully understand the problem, the inputs, the expected outputs, the tiny details that matter but are often overlooked, to identify roadblocks and determine options around them with associated costs and risks, and ultimately to chart a path from point A to B that has room for further complications.

Whatever the tool set, job title, or perceived level of efficiency provided by the tools, this need will never go away. Businesses are involved in a near constant effort to reduce what they have to pay for these skills, and welcome whatever latest fad points towards the potential of reducing those costs.

Exactly. They'll be signing contracts with "AI" coding farms in India which will just be staffed by overworked and un(der)paid interns and/or junior devs.

That is why I already ask it to generate unit tests for its AI generated functions as well, which are also wrong semantically sometimes....