Raw LLM Responses

This is tricky. Because I see some merit in the idea that fewer juniors today might mean problems in the future. However, you make two sweeping statements that I do not think are warranted. First, you said that AI can't actually replace developers anytime soon, and that is not quite true. It \*can\* replace juniors by allowing seniors to give out the same projects to AI that would have gone to juniors. It's not a 1 to 1, and I am not saying \*all\* juniors can be replaced, but I just had the situation where I gave a project to a junior. Two months later, it was still not finished. I then took it back and gave it to AI (in chunks). The project was done in 2 days, and that includes needing to replace nearly everything the junior had done. I have worked with enough juniors to know that there would have been some that would have also gotten it done within a few days, but also to know that this inability to finish the project is not that unusual. So yes: some, perhaps many, juniors can be replaced by AI, especially with seniors guiding the AI. The second statement was more implied than explicitly said: that we are going to have a problem with not enough seniors later. This one is tricky, because it depends on whether you think AI is going to flatline or not. I personally do not agree, at least assuming that the world does not completely fall apart. The AI we have today is the worst it will ever be. Perhaps LLMs are not the full solution, but I don't know why anyone would think that this would be the end of the road. A few years ago, I bet nearly everyone reading this had no clue that LLMs were even a thing and then they exploded onto the scene. I can tell a lot of stories about trying to wake people up back when they were much smaller, niche, and barely anyone knew about them, but honestly: who cares. The point is that tech does not go on nice smooth curves, but go in explosive bursts. The real problem with the idea that AI is going to stagnate is th