While AI has attracted significant developer talent away from crypto, the industry has managed to replace those losses by drawing professionals from other sectors. The net effect is a wash, explaining the stagnant developer numbers despite a rising market.
Contrary to fears of job replacement, AI coding systems expand what software can achieve, fueling a surge in project complexity and ambition. This trend increases the overall volume of code and the need for high-level human oversight, resulting in continued growth for developer roles rather than a reduction.
During tech gold rushes like AI, the most skilled engineers ("level 100 players") are drawn to lucrative but less impactful ventures. This creates a significant opportunity cost, as their talents are diverted from society's most pressing challenges, like semiconductor fabrication.
Increased developer productivity from AI won't lead to fewer jobs. Instead, it mirrors the Jevons paradox seen with electricity: as building software becomes cheaper and faster, the demand for it will dramatically increase. This boosts investment in new projects and ultimately grows the entire software engineering industry.
Don't view AI through a cost-cutting lens. If AI makes a single software developer 10x more productive—generating $5M in value instead of $500k—the rational business decision is to hire more developers to scale that value creation, not fewer.
While compute and capital are often cited as AI bottlenecks, the most significant limiting factor is the lack of human talent. There is a fundamental shortage of AI practitioners and data scientists, a gap that current university output and immigration policies are failing to fill, making expertise the most constrained resource.
Instead of fearing job loss, focus on skills in industries with elastic demand. When AI makes workers 10x more productive in these fields (e.g., software), the market will demand 100x more output, increasing the need for skilled humans who can leverage AI.
AI is a key factor in the current labor market stagnation. Companies are reluctant to hire as they assess AI's long-term impact on staffing needs. At the same time, they are holding onto experienced employees who are crucial for implementing and integrating the new AI technologies, thus suppressing layoffs.
Experience alone no longer determines engineering productivity. An engineer's value is now a function of their experience plus their fluency with AI tools. Experienced coders who haven't adapted are now less valuable than AI-native recent graduates, who are in high demand.
Instead of immediate, widespread job cuts, the initial effect of AI on employment is a reduction in hiring for roles like entry-level software engineers. Companies realize AI tools boost existing staff productivity, thus slowing the need for new hires, which acts as a leading indicator of labor shifts.
Mike Cannon-Brookes argues that AI makes developers more efficient, but since the demand for new technology is effectively unlimited, companies will simply build more. This will lead to a net increase in hiring for engineering talent, not a reduction.