Like all things it’s a spectrum. Many developers (most these days) are a commodity. The truly talented are not, and are uniquely good at their specializations.

Just like tradesman. A generic electrician journeyman for residential break/fix work is more or less a commodity these days. A specialized electrician who is known to be an expert at rehabbing 150 year old knob and tube wiring on a historical mansion is not.

It’s interesting to me how developers fought so hard to commodify themselves though? When I started my career in my early teens no one at all put jobs up for a “programmer” - it was nearly always a “C programmer” or “COBOl programmer” and most developers focused on one or two languages as experts. Then there was usually even further specialization on top of that as well!

Sometime after the dot com boom devs decided that if you were a developer worth anything at all you could pick up any language and be productive in it within weeks or months in nearly any role or industry. I’ve always thought this was insane.

"Lol", do you think in lols or do you ever sit and consider something more deeply? Or maybe you think adding a lol makes the other side's argument ridiculous and yours stronger?

Skipping the lols, here's the answer to your question: doesn't matter if developers "are already commodities" to some degree.

First, because that degree is small, else developers wouldn't command such high salaries relative to other trades. So they might be commoditized compared to surgeons, but not at all compared to most office or blue collar trades.

Second, even if they are commoditized to some degree, the argument is that AI will bring further commodification. Not that it will introduce the first and foremost case of commodification in the developing world.

I was pointing out the reference wasn't pointing at the house but the apprentice.

Lower barrier to entry means the developers are even more interchangeable than now.