Viktor Jarnheimer

Will Devin replace engineers, no! Why lets look at - Econ 101 - example from fintech / banking land **FIRST - ECON 101** reduce cost of engineering output -> increase demand for engineers. don't fall victim to the "Lump of labor fallacy". There is not a fixed amount of engineering work. if it gets cheaper to build software, we will build more of software! **EXAMPLE - DEVIN at banks** Here's an example of how this counterintuitive principal played out in Banking In the 1960s Banks created a Devin. Devin completely automated the work of Bank Tellers. You could deposit cash, withdrawal cash all without talking to a human this devin was called an ATM ; ) Automated Teller Machines. Bank Tellers were automated, so surely they all got laid off? No! Banks hired more Tellers than ever, why? Let's go back to Econ 101. The most important thing ATMs did was...reduce the marginal cost of operating a branch. You used to have to hire a bunch of bank tellers to run a branch. Tellers were expensive, so only X number of branches could be opened before you saturated markets and the next branch you opened was going to be unprofitable then devin (the ATM) came along. Now you could higher fewer tellers to run a branch and have them focus on higher value work. All of a sudden it was easier to make branches profitable...so we built more of them. Those new branches needed more tellers. So ironically, the absolute number of tellers increased. For 40+ years this was true. Technology adoption generally accelerates over time. But even if Devin is adopted and improved 4x faster than ATMs. we are still ~10 years away from "peak engineer". Maybe you're a Gen AI maximalist and think that will happen faster, could be right, but I think 10+ years is reasonable first order approximation. And actually what you can see in the early part of ATM adoption is that when you saw the MOSt rapid growth of demand for Tellers. So the next 10 years could see the most rapid increase in software engineering talent ever.