It's more than evident that software has automated away all kinds of wage labor from the aforementioned typist pools to Hollywood special effects model-makers.
What's different now is that it is actually the software creators’ labor that is in danger of automation (I think this is easily overstated but it is obviously true to some degree).
I get that it feels different for us now that OUR ox is the one being gored. And I do think there will be no end of negative externalities from the turn towards AI. But none of that refutes the above respondent's point?
1. Typists are still around and so are special effects model-makers. 2. People who program aren't in danger of automation. 3. These services are entirely unsustainable, they will absolutely not last at their current pace.
The premise of this entire work, detailed by the creator, is to utilize a program to reduce the amount of work a programmer is required to do. They believe ultimately, like most results of improved automation, that this will result in more things we can work on because we have more time. I agree that this would likely be the case! We could also simply make more programmers, could we not? Why haven't we? Do the 18k people homeless in my city tonight not deserve a shot at learning a skill before we even think about making the work easier per person?
Finally, and more to the point, genAI is built by and designed to eliminate workers entirely. The money that goes into those services funds billionaires who seek to completely and totally annihilate the concept of the proletariat. When I make a tool that helps workers at my job do their job better I am not looking to eliminate that person from the company.