The parent comment's point is that we _should_ care because cheap frontier-model access (that many of us have quickly become hopelessly dependent on) might be temporary.

It's amazing that anyone that has seen anything in technology in the last 30 years can say, "better be careful. They might stop subsidizing this and then it's gunna get expensive!" is ridiculous. I can buy a 1Tb flash drive for $100. Please, even with every reason to amortize the hardware over the longest horizon possible are only going out 6 years. 64K should be enough for anyone right?

I think the heavy investor subsidization / speculation makes this different. The high cost of early 1Tb flash drives was largely borne by buyers.

Yeah, I can't wait to buy some RAM for my PC! Oh, wait, the AI companies are buying up all the RAM sticks on the planet and driving up their prices to comical highs, surely these beacons of ethics and morality won't do the same with their services that are actively hemorrhaging Billions of dollars, they're providing these services to us out of the goodness of their black hearts and not any kind of monetary incentive after all!

Yes, hardware has become cheaper, but services all enshittify the moment the investors start to ask for some return.

If expert devs have junior devs to assign code to, that you review and integrate, do they become “hopelessly dependent” on junior devs?

My experience of expert devs is those who are happy to have extra leverage are not slowed much by having to do it themselves.

In no cases have I seen experts become “dependent” on the junior devs.

They do quite soon after they have become managers or product owners or “architects”.

Those were probably senior only in age.

They should care because they are expensive. If we become dependent on something that is expensive, we have to maintain a certain level of economic productivity to sustain our dependence.

For AI, once these companies or shareholders start demanding profit, then users will be footing the bill. At this rate, it seems like it'll be expensive without some technological breakthrough as another user mentioned.

For other things, like roads and public utilities, we have to maintain a certain level of economic productivity to sustain those as well. Roads for example are expensive to maintain. Municipalities, states, and the federal government within the US are in lots of debt associated with roads specifically. This debt may not be a problem now, but it leaves us vulnerable to problems in the future.

> Nearly nobody cares about ...

That's an accurate and sad truth about humanity in general, isn't it? We all feel safer and saner if we avoid thinking about how things really are. It's doubly true if our hands are dirty to some extent.

At the same time, I submit that ignoring the effectiveness of very small contingents of highly motivated people is a common failure mode of humanity in general. Recall that "nearly nobody" also describes "people who are the President of the United States." Observe how that tiny rounding error of humanity is responsible for quite a bit of the way the world goes - for good or ill. Arguably, that level of effectiveness doesn't even require much intelligence.

> Why should they care about the same for AI which for most people is “out there online” somewhere?

Well, some will be smart enough to see the problem. Some portion thereof will be wise enough to see a solution. And a portion of those folks will be motivated enough to implement it. That's all that's required. Very simple even if it's not very easy or likely.