I suppose it balances in the end, though. If you could make more money elsewhere you'd go elsewhere, so the whole reason you are willing to accept being underpaid through the transitionary phase is because you realize that you will be overpaid afterwards.
Bit too soon to tell, no? Claude Code wasn't released until the latter half of Q2, offering little time for it to show up in those figures, and Q3 data is only preliminary right now. Moreover, it seems to be the pairing with Opus 4.5 that lends some credence to the claims. However, it was released in Q4. We won't have that data for quite a while. And like Claude Code, it came late in the quarter, so realistically we really need to wait on Q1 2026 figures, which hasn't happened yet and won't really start to appear until summertime and beyond.
That said, I expect you are right that we won't see it show up. Even if we assume the claim is true in every way for some people, it only works for exceptional visionaries who were previously constrained by typing speed, which is a very, very, very small segment of the developer population. Any gains that small group realize will be an unrecognizable blip amid everything else. The vast majority of developers need all that typing time and more to have someone come up with their next steps. Reducing the typing time for them doesn't make them any more productive. They were never limited by typing speed in the first place.
Also, US manufacturing already struggles to find workers.
The problem, though, is that 70% of US manufacturing happens in small town/rural areas, which is not where the people looking for jobs are found, so you get this curious disconnect.
Flipping toggle switches went out of fashion many, many, many years ago. We've been describing to trainees (compilers) the dish we want for longer than most on HN have been alive.
That’s not the only difference at all. A good use of an LLM might be to ask it what the difference between using an LLM and writing code for a compiler is.
Equally a good use for a legacy compiler that compiles a legacy language. Granted, you are going to have to write a lot more boilerplate to see it function (that being the difference, after all), but the outcome will be the same either way. It's all just 1s and 0s at the end of the day.
Sorry friend, if you can’t identify the important differences between a compiler and an LLM, either intentionally or unintentionally (I can’t tell), then I must question the value of whatever you have to say on the topic.
The important difference is the reduction in boilerplate, which allows programs to be written with (often) significantly less code. Hence the time savings (and fun) spoken of in the original article.
This isn't really a new phenomenon. Languages have been adding things like arrays and maps as builtins to reduce the boilerplate required around them. The modern languages of which we speak take that same idea to a whole new level, but such is the nature of evolution.
No, when we write code it has a an absolute and specific meaning to the compiler. When we write words to an LLM they are written in a non-specific informal language (usually English) and processed non-deterministically too. This is an incredibly important distinction that makes coding, and asking the LLM to code, two completely different ball games. One is formal, one is not.
It's different in some ways (such is evolution), but is not a distinction that matters. Kind of like the difference between imperative and declarative programming. Different language models, but all the same at the end of the day.
> I am surprised that people don't do a rails new for their new startups.
Technology never matters, but marketing does. Traditionally you had to use 'esoteric' technologies to attract top talent, which has long been held as an important factor in startup success. Rails had that moment in the sun, but that was decades ago.
Granted, it remains to be seen if the talent differential still matters in the AI era, but hiring norms haven't caught up either way.
When a computer is able to invent things, we’ve achieved AGI. Do you believe we are already in the AGI era, or is the inventor in this case actually you?
In the olden days alcohol was a prerequisite to get (most) people dancing. Nowadays drinking has declined substantially, especially amongst the younger crowd who are most likely to frequent concerts and clubs.
Does the article factor that in? It won't load for me, unfortunately.
Or maybe everyone feeling like they are being watched all the time (while simultaneously staring at their phones) is part of why people are drinking less? It’s a vicious cycle.
I think drinking is declining for the same reason as dancing... any situation involving relaxing in a social way has gone from "what do the people around me think of me?" to "how could someone make what I'm doing look stupid to get upvotes/likes on social media?"
edit: It deserves mentioning the level of drinking involved in socializing was never a good thing and I think everyone is more aware of the dangers now.
reply