It's a zero sum game. AI cannot innovate, it can only predictively generate code based on what it's already seen. If we get to a point where new code is mostly or only written by AI, nothing new emerges. No new libraries, no new techniques, no new approaches. Fewer and fewer real developers means less and less new code.

> Mostly because humans are made worse by using AI.

I'm confident you are wrong about that.

AI makes people who are intellectually lazy and like to cheating worse, in the same way that a rich kid who hires someone to do their university homework for them is hurting their ability to learn.

A rich kid who hires a personal tutor and invests time with them is spending the same money but using it to get better, not worse.

Getting worse using AI is a choice. Plenty of people are choosing to use it to accelerate and improve their learning and skills instead.

[not an ai booster] I think you are the target of this article. I believe you are misunderstanding the current capacity AI

> Mostly because humans are made worse by using AI.

For the type of work I do, I found it best to tightly supervise my LLMs. Giving lots of design guidance upfront, and being very critical towards the output. This is not easy work. In fact, this was always the hard part, and now I'm spending a larger percentage of my time doing it. As the impact of design mistakes is a lot smaller, I can just revert after 20 minutes instead of 3 days, I also get to learn from mistakes quicker. So I'd say, I'm improving my skills faster than before.

For juniors though, I think you are right. By relying on this tech from early on in their careers, I think it will be very hard to grow their skills, taste and intuition. But maybe I'm just an old guy yelling at the clouds, and the next generation of developers will do just fine building careers as AI whisperers.