Yet your comment is true. Perhaps the difference is that science is inherently interesting because nature is confined to things that are consistent and make sense, while the latest security model for version 3.0 of this-or-that web service protocol, vs. version 2.0, is basically arbitrary and resists effective visual diagramming. Learning software (not computer science) is an exercise in memorizing things that aren't inherently interesting.

In comes Wanderfugl. A tool for traveling that I will never need, where just trying to figure out what it does used more time than I wanted to spend on it. Now with AI, there will be several shiny new travel apps like Wanderfugl for you to learn and choose from literally every time you go on another vacation.

Wanderfugl may be wonderful, and an achievement. But the reaction of this Seattleite is "What's the point anymore?" This is why I am uninterested in the AI coding trend. It's just a part of a lot of new stuff I don't need.

Unfortunately it's the coders who are most excited to put themselves out of business with incredible code-generation facilities. The techies that remain employed will be the feature vibers with 6-figure salaries supplied by the efforts of the now-unemployed programmers. The cycle will thus continue.

The post asked a hypothetical question about human motivation. "Why would I..." It came as a question but presumed that the answer was so obvious that the point would be clear without an explicit answer: with such a policy, people won't bother creating the products that lead to unicorns.