I really don't understand why CEOs like this who are AI boosters try to justify the idea that this will create more developers, when that seems exceedingly unlikely, even if they are correct in their predictions of productivity increases.
The quote from the article "if you 10x a single developer, then 10 developers can do 100x." implies that companies have 100x the things to be developed productively, what if that isn't the case?
What if companies actually have about as many systems as they need, if you really can 10x your existing developers, then that would predicate a cut not an increase.
Of course the follow on from that, for suppliers who have per-seat licensing is that they'll need to find some other way to monetize if there are fewer seats to be sold, I guess they could start charging AI Agents as "developer seats"....
The quote from the article "if you 10x a single developer, then 10 developers can do 100x." implies that companies have 100x the things to be developed productively, what if that isn't the case?
What if companies actually have about as many systems as they need, if you really can 10x your existing developers, then that would predicate a cut not an increase.
Of course the follow on from that, for suppliers who have per-seat licensing is that they'll need to find some other way to monetize if there are fewer seats to be sold, I guess they could start charging AI Agents as "developer seats"....