Yes. The moment you move from daily IC work to management your skills begin to atrophy. Even if you are magical and somehow they do not - you are not keeping up/practicing on the newer developments.

If you are doing your job as a manager it’s the scariest career possible. There is no realistic fallback to lower paid IC work after a certain amount of years. Your job is to enable others, not do things yourself.

There are shades of grey and you try to keep skills at least honed a little here and there doing R&D and side projects - but it’s just not the same as day to day production line work.

And of course some people start at a much higher baseline of skill than others. The impact is largely the same though over time.

This is by far the single largest caution I give to skilled engineers who talk to me about moving into a management track. It’s a decision not to be taken lightly.

Yes. It even happens to e.g. professors and the deans of universities.

This is why I think even the fuss about Noam Shazeer joining OpenAI needs to be seen within a context; as good as this hire is, there is no inherent reason to believe he still brings some secret undiscovered magic that others do not have in a more current form.

The ownership class does not really do work. What they delegate (high level plans) is generally easier to do for AI agents than things like software engineering because it does not need to be as precise or executable. However, there the work has very broad scope scope and the roles are very high risk, so it might need a Fable 5 or Fable 6 level vision language model to remove the jaggedness to make it 'safe' enough to drop the humans But what is going to blow up in 2027 are Automated AI Companies. Human CEOs and owners will not be able to compete with these AI-run companies.

intellectual work (or really any discipline with a 'skills tree' that you can progress up or down) degrades over time without practice. same way that, if you don't run for a while, you're not going to be able to hit your last PR when you pick it back up.

it's definitely easier to catch up after some time away than it would be if you'd never developed the skills in the first place or didn't have a natural talent, but you'll definitely atrophy without exercise. every leader i've ever worked for who graduated to a purely managerial/'strategic' position and didn't keep up their IC skills eventually got pretty slow on the uptake.

i appreciate that this study was done (AI and its inverse relationship to human wellbeing is one of the biggest challenges of our time IMO) but this also seems obvious

Yes, but what happens to the professions and classes you've mentioned that wasn't looked at in this study is that new skills developed. For instance, something was assuredly lost as programming on average deviated from low level programming, but new skills and optimizations were gained. Fewer people knew how to construct a real-time bitmap from scratch, but more advanced software was being built on average as people were armed with greater and more manageable abstractions.

The "I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people!" character in Office Space was memorably hilarious for a reason. Many people lose the skills that got them where they are from disuse as they rise through the ranks.

Having run into quite a few managers who used to be programmers who can barely do fizzbuzz after a few years of managing: yes, I think it's pretty similar. Much of your brain is "use it or lose it" and that's not using it.

I do think there's more than enough room to claim that LLMs are probably significantly worse than that kind of human delegation though, in part because you have such a rapid cycle time that not-incredibly-rich people can't afford from humans.

AI needs a great deal of handholding which is different than just offloading tasks. You spend a lot of cognitive energy playing a slot machine hoping the RNG works out this time.

There’s definitely a skill to using AI but it just doesn’t generalize very well.

  if this same effect happens for very wealthy and/or very senior executives?

The difference is what you delegate to. An executive delegates to people like himself. A computer user delegates to another kind of existence so those think don't think the same way the user does.

Programming normally highlights this difference. LLM programming makes it much less apparent but its still there, LLM are not thinking the way humans do and therefore struggle to solve many problems humans easily solve. So letting all human programming skills rot and just use LLM will halt our progress unless we reach AGI before our programmings skills are mostly gone.

>Because we have no moral or social pressure to not delegate everything?

"We" depends on where you are. Countries like Japan or Germany have maintained a gray collar, rather than a blue/white collar culture for exactly that reason. You will find business owners on the workshop floors frequently because there is an understanding that divorcing management from tacit work is going destroy leadership ability. That's the basis of vocational work culture, having general expertise across all domains of your job rather than being a kind of over-specialized idiot.

This is why the rich and powerful often seem so out of touch. There's no one around them willing to tell them they're wrong or push back on bad ideas. It doesn't just ruin skills but fundamentally distorts one's perception of the world.

> Or are AIs fundamentally different, and if so, why?

Literally: the context window.

With the human you have a window that possibly extends up to _years_. With your language model you have maybe a few megabytes which is always preceded by instructions from the model maker.

The main skill you need to reach that level is the one they always keep practicing: shmoozing. Thinking is not required as an executive, so you cannot lose what you never had.

And being born wealthy requires zero skill or practice.