I don't think anyone can claim certainty on this either way.
My view is that in the past the increases in productivity have come in a period of exponential growth of the software industry and that growth can absorb the additional productivity. But exponential growth doesn't last forever and if you have a period of a declining / flat / slowly growing software field, a significant enough productivity improvement from tools like LLMs can reduce the overall demand for software development.
Developers who know how to use LLMs are some % faster and more productive. You can increase the % enough so that overall demand for developers goes down or doesn't grow as much as it would have otherwise.
It's not "my company laid us all off and replaced us with an LLM" but more like "this year our team is hiring for 3 new people instead of 4" - that's still a significant impact on the job market. And who knows how those numbers will change as LLMs get better.
You need something more sophisticated, otherwise it's easy to confuse high skill and/or well memorised lines with cheating. And a good cheater will be smart enough to either use engine assistance only in difficult spots and/or frequently pick the second/third best moves from the engine.
Kind of embarrassing that he doesn't have the self-awareness especially after the false accusations that he cheated during his WC match and that whole scandal years ago.
You're confusing the general "don't limit yourself to one language" which is good advice, with the specific "OP's problem in the past year has been that they know Java and are looking for Java roles" which the GP commenter has no way of knowing and is extremely unlikely to be the case.
This is bad advice. OP has experience in a popular stack, no way that the language is their problem. They'll have an even more difficult time finding a job if they decide to switch stacks now.
You're grossly overestimating the significance of these businesses - AI startups that integrate with a LLM API are a rounding error in the overall market. They're tiny and there isn't as many of them as you think, nothing like 2000.
No, that's not how anything works. The point is that it's alive as long as someone is running a node.
Whether the price will move up or down in the future - I think it's naive to think that you can profitably speculate on its price movement (long or short).
What does "popping" mean concretely? That some new companies that aren't profitable... won't last long and won't be profitable, just like it's expected from most startups? Why should anyone who isn't an employee/customer/investor/founder care?
When you talk about something waking up, you're already into science fiction and not talking about anything which exists, or is remotely similar to anything which exists, or is currently being worked on, or attempted in any way.
I don't know, way before all of this drama started, the rumors were that he was barely contributing any original or significant ideas to research and the grounbreaking ideas had come from lower level researchers.
My view is that in the past the increases in productivity have come in a period of exponential growth of the software industry and that growth can absorb the additional productivity. But exponential growth doesn't last forever and if you have a period of a declining / flat / slowly growing software field, a significant enough productivity improvement from tools like LLMs can reduce the overall demand for software development.