Seriously, like, why on EARTH would you go out trying to prove this theory? There is no winning case. Either you tarnish the name of freelance software engineering by delivering absolute garbage, or it delivers good enough work and now software engineering as a craft and a career goes the way of the dodo. Many (not all, sure) of us have few, if any, other marketable skills that provide a comfortable living, so I’m not sure why folks are so hellbent on getting themselves and their colleagues all turned into baristas with 6 roommates.
The economic value implied here is a bit of a fallacy, since it assumes that supply and demand do not change. In the light that an AI model could solve these problems, they will likely no longer be worth $1 million (unless some AI firm manages to dig an actual moat around the technology, which looks unlikely so far).
An easier to measure example is a commodity like stock photos. When generative Image models were starting to appear and people were predicting that based on the value of the stock photo industry being in the region of $6 billion annualy, AI models if capturing that market could earn similar amounts. However due to the drastically reduced cost of making images, and the barrier to entry being so low, supply can increase massively. Whilst you may get jevon’s paradox increasing demand due to the decreased price, it is unlikely to match the supply. This prediction can be seen in the markets by the dwindling value of getty, shutterstock and others, with a noticable outlier being adobe, which so far has managed to capitalise on this well.
I don’t think there has ever been a profession quite as excited about losing their livelihoods as software engineers.
Seriously, like, why on EARTH would you go out trying to prove this theory? There is no winning case. Either you tarnish the name of freelance software engineering by delivering absolute garbage, or it delivers good enough work and now software engineering as a craft and a career goes the way of the dodo. Many (not all, sure) of us have few, if any, other marketable skills that provide a comfortable living, so I’m not sure why folks are so hellbent on getting themselves and their colleagues all turned into baristas with 6 roommates.
The economic value implied here is a bit of a fallacy, since it assumes that supply and demand do not change. In the light that an AI model could solve these problems, they will likely no longer be worth $1 million (unless some AI firm manages to dig an actual moat around the technology, which looks unlikely so far).
An easier to measure example is a commodity like stock photos. When generative Image models were starting to appear and people were predicting that based on the value of the stock photo industry being in the region of $6 billion annualy, AI models if capturing that market could earn similar amounts. However due to the drastically reduced cost of making images, and the barrier to entry being so low, supply can increase massively. Whilst you may get jevon’s paradox increasing demand due to the decreased price, it is unlikely to match the supply. This prediction can be seen in the markets by the dwindling value of getty, shutterstock and others, with a noticable outlier being adobe, which so far has managed to capitalise on this well.