Totally agree. We have gradually move through a new economic system and culture.

I was not using the analogy with farming as basis to make a prediction. I used it as a way of showing other historical case in which technology brought about a drastical reduction of labor in a given industry.

Thanks, but I do not agree with you disagreeing, :). For your response, I think that you are actually in agreement with me, and with the spirit of my post. Nonetheless, I honestly appreciate the constructive conversation.

Yes, but there will be less or more programmers?

I think this is the best argument against my thesis. But It could be the case that increasing software demand will be absorbed by increasing AI capabilities. Until the point AI surpasses all human capabilities needed for software development.

I have a pretty good understanding of AI. I have a formal training on the subject. So, please. Why it gives you headaches? I want specifics, not name calling or dismissal without arguments.

Nobody is going to hire a programmer to do a job a machine does in no time for virtually no cost.

Yes, the same way people invest in playing better at chest. But if any professional player wants to find the best move will use a chess program.

I was assuming for the sake of argument that human capabilities have been surpassed. I think the rest follows based in economic incentives.

I am curious. Why is so stupid?

From an economical stand point you will not have any incentive to enhance human obsolete capabilities. You would rather invest in enhancing AI-based more advanced and productive capabilities.

I agree that with the improvement of the technology you can do more and better stuff. But I think that you missed the point that the fundamental human capabilities are fixed to our biology and AI is only starting to make a dent on its increasing powers. Until, in the not too far future, all human cognitive capabilities will have been surpassed by AI. In this moment the game will be over.