zlacker

I'd be worried instead of happy in your case, it means your lunch is getting eaten as a company.

Personally I'm in a software company where this new LLM wave didn't do much of a difference.

>>realus+(OP)
Not at all. We dont care whether the software is written by a machine or by a human. If the machine does it cheaper, to a better, more consistent standard, then its win for us.

>>Arthur+u3
You don't care but that's what the market is paying you for. You aren't just replacing developers, you are replacing yourself.

Cheaper organisations will be able to compete with you which couldn't before and will drive your revenue down.

>>realus+P4
That might be the case if we were an organisation that resisted change and were not actively pursuing reducing our staff count via AI, but it isnt. In the AI era our company will thrive because we are no longer constrained by needing to find a specific type of human talent that can build the complicated systems we develop.

>>Arthur+g5
So what will happen once most/all your staff is replaced with AI? Your clients will ask the fundamental question: what are we paying you for? You are missing the point that the parent comment raises: LLMs are not only replacing the need for your employees, they are replacing the need for you.

>>Arthur+g5
You are no longer constrained by that but so are your competitors.

Your developers weren't just a cost but also a barrier to entry.

>>short_+N7
We don't produce software for clients. We provide solutions. That is what they pay us for. Until there is AGI (which could be 4 years away or 400) there is no LLM which can do that.