When Anyone Can Build Software, Who Decides What Not to Build?

I feel it's more nuanced than this, at least for now.

It's true to say anyone can build software, but that doesn't make the software good and it's not true to say that's specifically reliant on taste.

As an example I working with an Entrepreneur right now who has no coding experience but have successfully made a product which they have also already sold to a mid sized company.

However without my involvement and knowing the right levers to craft the AI the software just wasn't performing how it needed to despite the latest frontier models trying their hardest to achieve what he was stating.

At least for now there's still a need for experienced devs.

The market decides as it does for everything else.

I love how every one of these "how do we cope now" essays makes the assumption that the progress has now stopped, and what we currently have is what needs to be adapted to.

Humanity really does not want to look at what is happening.

Delusional.

Let me illustrate with a similarly dumb question:

When anyone can buy legal forms from an office supply store or make photocopies from books, why pay for a lawyer and who decides what needs a contract anyway?

That was likely a real question that got some debate in the 20th century only further compounded by the internet by the end of that century. Guess what? We still have lawyers.

Market

I think creative analysts may have a brighter future than programmers. When almost anyone can build software, the real skill shifts from knowing how to build something to understanding what is worth building in the first place. Creativity, judgement, curiosity and the ability to see consequences may become far more valuable than simply being able to write code.

Taste.