The number of vacation week and public holidays has increased, which explains the majority of the difference in "annual work hours".

The 10x in productivity is in no way reflected by the number of work hours.

Very strong assumption and very narrow setting that is one of the counter examples.

AI researchers in the 80s already told you that AI is around the corner in the next 5 years. Didn't happen. I wouldn't hold my breath this time either.

"AI" is a misnomer. LLMs are not "intelligence". They are a lossy compression algorithm of everything that was put into their training set. Pretty good at that, but that's essentially it.

Some jobs will be automated away. Good thing. Braindead stuff that a machine can do should be done by a machine. Doesn't mean we'll all soon be just picking our noses. There will be other work to be done, and if unregulated capitalism has its say then it can easily lead to even more worker exploitation.

A policeman standing on a public square threatening to incarcerate anybody who is violent results in no violence actually happening at that square. Take away that regulation (in form of the policeman) and watch the actual violence start.

That just points to an inefficiency. Could be tackled in other ways than involving an LLM to produce essentially what's being done elsewhere every day over and over again. A framework automating and hiding all this would be just as effective. Perhaps even cleaner than all that duplication that the LLM created for you.

In other words, that month of busywork that you just saved is inherently unnecessary to do. But progress is not linear in the number of lines of code that you produce. If you think hard about a good architecture and design, coming up with that after 2 weeks of hard thinking, that could be 90% of the work. The remaining 10% are writing all that down. That could take 3 more months, and it taking more than 10% of the time points to the existing inefficiency in tooling / framework / ... But making that more efficient isn't necessarily achieved the best by using an LLM and writing it all out. There are still huge redundancies, which is what made the LLM possible. Once you boil these down in some common frameworks or tools, the LLM will also just produce the same few lines that you'd need to produce to get those 10% done in then just 10% of the total time.

In theory one can do that also with self-study. Most people don't, they just watch some youtube video or read a Wikipedia page, and then they think they have understood something. But the deeper understanding that comes from applying this new knowledge is missing. That step is forced when you take a university course that has some form of examination in-built. Doing it yourself is possible but non-obvious, hard, perhaps even unpleasant, and it's rare people do it. Some do though, and their understanding isn't inferior to a university graduate.

That's such a economical fallacy that I'd expect the HN crowd to have understood this ages ago.

Compare the average productivity of somebody working in a car factory 80 years ago with somebody today. How many person-hours did it take then and how many does it take today to manufacture a car? Did the number of jobs between then and now shrink by that factor? To the contrary. The car industry had an incredible boom.

Efficiency increase does not imply job loss since the market size is not static. If cost is reduced then things are suddenly viable which weren't before and market size can explode. In the end you can end up with more jobs. Not always, obviously, but there are more examples than you can count which show that.

It seems to me that LLM output creates a similar situation.

Or would you argue that NFTs actually did live up to the BS that was ascribed to them in some circles during their hype?

If you are working at a place where that quality level is standard -- and let's face it, a large number of companies produce average or below-average quality code (by definition) -- then using an LLM assistant isn't that bad. At least if such an assistant doesn't have some extra flaws beyond producing the best summary of its training data, which is exactly what an LLM does. It actually justifiably replaces developers in such an average-or-below place. But if you are aiming for the top end of the quality scale then there is no way this can be achieved by LLM output. Purely on principle.

This shouldn't even be a controversial opinion. I'm quite surprised every time this is questioned or even just debated.

I mean, the theft itself is obviously unlawful. But perhaps you wouldn't be taxed on theft proceeds anyway, so no tax laws are broken in that case.

In other words, you wanted to cheat. I can't comment on whether that's fraud in a legal sense, it's still cheating.

This also moves the risk of the perpetrator not being able to pay the damage. Now the victim does not carry that risk anymore. The insurance does. Which is their value proposition.