I think this thread is missing that coding is a pretty small part of running a tech company. I have no concerns about my job security even if it could write all the code, which it can't.

I have no idea if you're correct about this or not. With 8 billion people in the world, and a significant number of those people working as "intelligent agents," how would you perceive the difference?

If you think the revolution starts with 8 billion people you're just plain wrong.

It starts with the first world and is very perceivable.

How did we perceive cars replacing horses? Well for one they were replaced in the first world... now imagine how fast a piece of software can change reality.

It's not there yet, and you can't perceive it because so.

> it's not there yet

It's literally everywhere around me.

Coworkers, friends in other companies, business owner friends writing their first code, NGO friends using it to write grants.

I'm not sure where you are, but you appear to be isolated from the real world.

Huh?

Did you not read the context of the comments you're replying to or something?

People using the tool isn't the same as those people being replaced by the tool. Why would anyone think those are the same?

When exactly did you perceive cars replacing the horse? I happen to live in a very equestrian area; I think you'd be hard pressed to convince folks that the horses have even been replaced

The same time the rest of the world did, around the period of WW2. You being in an isolated bubble is irrelevant.

What a weird reply.

So your contention is, the larger the trend, the less perceptible?

My contention is how would you perceive the difference between a needle in a haystack and a thread-puller in a haystack

GDP?

Yeah. The only way this revolution doesn't happen is if humans are cheaper, easier to manage or source. And I'm pretty sure AI is already beating a human in all those categories doing the same job.

Our jobs aren't replaced yet because they can't be.