Sibling commenters seem to be confused.

Usually experts are T shaped. Acquiring expertise always means the time spent is away from learning something else.

The deeper and greater the expertise the more niche the topic usually becomes and the less demand there is.

The world might need X million web developers but how many experts are there in browser technology. Or even experts in that domain something more niche like rendering or rendering niche like Angle and WebGL..you already go this deep and it boils down to a handful of individuals.

Also I didn't say that there would not be demand just that many businesses are not willing to pay for it anymore. Industry layoffs, AI are huge leverages that any potential employer can use to have all the advantage when negotiating compensation.

> Claude can so the expert stuff with a non-expert (at least in their mind)

Opus is far better at most surface-level tasks than it is at tasks that require deep knowledge and understanding of domains; someone who is a complete generalist (who thus has only surface level knowledge in many, many things) is far more replaceable with LLMs than someone who has deep knowledge in one.

Consider the way LLMs actually are created; they are not created from billions of repos with deep knowledge behind them. The majority of their knowledge comes from a massive amount of surface-level work that's been done and can be sampled from: React starter templates, starter templates + what little customization someone needed, blog-tutorial-level stuff.

This is a strong assertion that's directionally wrong. No matter the economy's state or any AI progress, experts are always searched for.

This is not true at all. Not even a sliver of truth.

There must be a word for this style of post where you take your own inadequacies and fears and project them on to others?

Even if it's true that AI can replace an expert, and I really don't think it is, except in the simplest minds, the AI training companies are aggressively hiring experts...