It's happened a few times in my career where people tell me I'll be obsolete, but it's always been some company hyping their new product and suits frothing at the prospect of not having to pay me anymore.

So far they're like 0 for 8 or so.

Now I will say the goalposts move. What I'm doing now is for sure not what I was doing 10 years ago. I'm definitely heavier in devops and infra than where I was before (ironic because they said we'd never have to worry about that stuff again if we moved to the cloud). AI is still basically machine learning, just in a while loop, so I've spent time learning that. So, in a way, yes we're obsolete in the sense that if I was the same engineer I was 10 years ago I wouldn't be worth nearly this much, I had to grow and evolve with technology.

I know this is c/programmerhumor but I'll take a stab at the question. If I may broaden the question to include collectively the set of software engineers, programmers, and (from a mainframe era) operators -- but will still use "programmers" for brevity -- then we can find examples of all sorts of other roles being taken over by computers or subsumed as part of a different worker's job description. So it shouldn't really be surprising that the job of programmer would also be partially offloaded.

The classic example of computer-induced obsolescence is the job of typist, where a large organization would employ staff to operate typewriters to convert hand-written memos into typed documents. Helped by the availability of word processors -- no, not the software but a standalone appliance -- and then the personal computer, the expectation moved to where knowledge workers have to type their own documents.

If we look to some of the earliest analog computers, built to compute differential equations such as for weather and flow analysis, a small team of people would be needed to operate and interpret the results for the research staff. But nowadays, researchers are expected to crunch their own numbers, possibly aided by a statistics or data analyst expert, but they're still working in R or Python, as opposed to a dedicated person or team that sets up the analysis program.

In that sense, the job of setting up tasks to run on a computer -- that is, the old definition of "programming" the machine -- has moved to the users. But alleviating the burden on programmers isn't always going to be viewed as obsolescence. Otherwise, we'd say that tab-complete is making human-typing obsolete lol

mechanical analogue computer designed to solve differential equations by integration

^{Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)}

If a tool were created that properly converted an UML diagram into a project without any need for code, all the programmers that lost their job to this tool would then be hired by the company that offered it, in order to give maintenance and support to everything the customers want in their programs.

It would be removing programmers from they payroll of some companies but they would still be working for them, just further down in the chain.

The same is true for AI. If AI could completely replace programmers in some area, it would need a lot of programmers itself to keep dealing with all the edge cases that would show up from being used everywhere that a programmer was needed before.

Rational Rose etc. could generate code from UML diagrams, then you "only" needed architects.

In reality it only gave a little help during the design phase, as soon as someone touches the generated code, you have to manually merge changes to UML.

Oracle has a product called Oracle Policy Automation (OPA) that it sells as "you can write the rules in plain English in MS Word documents, you don't need developers". I worked for an insurance organization where the business side bought OPA without consulting IT, hoping they wouldn't have to deal with developers. It totally failed because it doesn't matter that they get to write "plain English" in Word documents. They still lack the structured, formal thinking to deal with anything except the happiest of happy paths.

The important difference between a developer and a non-developer isn't the ability to understand the syntax of a programming language. It's the willingness and ability to formalize and crystallize requirements and think about all the edge cases. As an architect/programmer when I talk to the business side, they get bored and lose interest from all my questions about what they actually want.

• can AI replace the job of a real programmer, or a team of software engineers? Probably not for a long time.
• can manager abuse the fantasy that they could get rid of those pesky engineers that dare telling them something is impossible? Yes totally. If they believe adding an AI tool to a team justifies a 200% increase in productivity. Some managers will fire people against all metrics and evidence. Calling that move a success. Same occurred when they try to outsource code to cheaper teams.