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.

A scapegoat is sacrificed for someone else's mistake against their will. A guarantor (or in Japanese terms, a Samurai) voluntarily stakes their reputation to validate the system.

Why does a CEO get paid 100x more than an intern? Not because they type 100x faster, but because they are the "designated thermal fuse" that burns out to save the company.

If AI becomes the engine, "being the fuse" (taking the risk) becomes the most expensive service in the economy. It’s not comforting, I agree. But it is profitable.

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.

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.

My take: The market for "Coders" will shrink, but the market for "Problem Solvers who use Logic" will explode.

Think of "Scribes" (people who wrote letters for others) in the past. When literacy became universal, the job of "Scribe" vanished. But the amount of writing in the world increased billion-fold.

Engineering is becoming the new literacy. We won't be "Engineers" anymore; we will just be "People who build things." The title disappears, but the capability becomes universal.