It's tough to for me to judge cause I've been programming for 30 years maybe I'm underestimating how hard it is, but I look at learning a new language very different that trying to understand the graduate level CS work I've seen at a top STEM school.
Git, shell, basics.. even simple python if you have any at all programming experience - not nearly as hard as what they're teaching in the class.
Most of the time something like that like learning latex or git basics.. they'll say.. you'll pick up what you need. They're not gonna spend 12 weeks on those subjects they aren't hard enough.
Humans have a proven history of re-inventing economic systems, so if AI ends up thinking better than we do (yet unproven this is possible), then we should have superior future systems.
But the question is a system optimized for what? That emphasizes huge rewards for the few, and that requires the poverty of some (or many). Or a more fair system. Not different from the challenges of today.
I'm skeptical even a very intelligent machine will change the landscape of our dificult decisions, but will accelerate which direction we decide (or is decided for us), that we go.
AI more of a force muliplier than a replacement. If you rated programmers from 0 to 100. AI can take you from 0 to 80, but can't take you from 98 to 99.
I'd love to record these AI CEOs statements about what's going to happen in the next 24 months and look back at that time -- see how "transformed" the world is then.
There is something that I find very often gets lost, not in this comment but in the general conversations.
There are reasons to study CompSci that have nothing to do with trying to get a job, or make yourself a better worker. Namely, it's fun!
You can be a lifetime student of it and can be very rewarding. Both the practical side (programming) and delving into the mathematical underpinnings (theory) and history of computation.
News articles where people tell young people, "don't study computer science" don't get it.
The refinance is a real issue, but it doesn't matter too much cause the Fed can (and will) always intervene. They can soak up any supply to push the 10 year down.
Same reason why it doesn't matter if China etc.. wants our treasuries. Fed is always there to buy them.
It's not a question about the one who cannot influence the 7.9B. The question is disparity, which is like income disparity.
What happens when fewer and fewer people influence greater and greater numbers. Understanding the risk in that.