As artificial intelligence continues to advance rapidly, concerns about job loss and human relevance in an automated future have grown louder. Addressing these fears head-on, Zoho founder Sridhar Vembu recently shared his views on how society might evolve if AI takes over most or even all kinds of work.
AI May Take Over Code, But Not Purpose
In a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), Vembu presented a hypothetical future where all software development is fully automated and software engineers, like himself, are out of work. However, he stressed that we are “nowhere close to that goal” right now. Even if AI systems reach a point where they can independently manage all coding tasks, he argued, it doesn’t mean human beings will become obsolete.
Vembu argued that the core issue wouldn’t be the disappearance of work but how the economic benefits of automation are shared. He said the problem would shift from technological capability to political economy—how income and access to goods are redistributed.
Two Possible Paths to a Fairer System
According to Vembu, there are two key ways this dilemma could be resolved:
Zero-Cost Goods: One scenario involves goods made by robots and AI becoming so cheap that their prices drop to zero, much like the air we breathe. In this world, essential services and products would be accessible to everyone without cost being a barrier.
Higher Value for Human-Centric Jobs: The second possibility is that the remaining human roles — such as caring for children, nursing the sick, or restoring ecosystems — may gain higher economic value. These roles, Vembu said, could command greater purchasing power, especially if goods become ultra-affordable.
He emphasized that these solutions require intervention, especially through anti-monopoly regulations. Without government efforts to break up tech monopolies, the cost savings from automation may not reach the general public.
Public Reactions Reflect Hope, Concern, and Debate
Vembu’s comments sparked a wave of responses online. Some users agreed that AI might eventually replace most economic functions, while others warned of risks — including job loss, loss of skills, and monopolistic control of resources.
One user pointed out that building and maintaining the robots themselves would still require engineers, energy, and infrastructure. Another suggested the need for an “AI ombudsman” to oversee the direction AI development takes. Some questioned who would control these technologies, fearing they could become exclusive tools of the elite.
The Future of Coding and Legacy Systems
In a separate discussion, Vembu earlier questioned the continued relevance of older programming languages like C, JavaScript, and SQL. He argued that these tools, though widely used, might not suit the demands of the next century. Modern web development, he noted, is bogged down by the complexity of using multiple programming languages just to build simple interfaces.
He suggested that AI could drive the transition away from these legacy systems by forcing the tech world to reimagine the fundamental principles of computing. Far from making engineers redundant, this shift may redefine their work, pushing them toward innovation rather than maintenance.
AI May Take Over Code, But Not Purpose
In a recent post on X (formerly Twitter), Vembu presented a hypothetical future where all software development is fully automated and software engineers, like himself, are out of work. However, he stressed that we are “nowhere close to that goal” right now. Even if AI systems reach a point where they can independently manage all coding tasks, he argued, it doesn’t mean human beings will become obsolete.Vembu argued that the core issue wouldn’t be the disappearance of work but how the economic benefits of automation are shared. He said the problem would shift from technological capability to political economy—how income and access to goods are redistributed.
Two Possible Paths to a Fairer System
According to Vembu, there are two key ways this dilemma could be resolved:Zero-Cost Goods: One scenario involves goods made by robots and AI becoming so cheap that their prices drop to zero, much like the air we breathe. In this world, essential services and products would be accessible to everyone without cost being a barrier.
Higher Value for Human-Centric Jobs: The second possibility is that the remaining human roles — such as caring for children, nursing the sick, or restoring ecosystems — may gain higher economic value. These roles, Vembu said, could command greater purchasing power, especially if goods become ultra-affordable.
He emphasized that these solutions require intervention, especially through anti-monopoly regulations. Without government efforts to break up tech monopolies, the cost savings from automation may not reach the general public.
Public Reactions Reflect Hope, Concern, and Debate
Vembu’s comments sparked a wave of responses online. Some users agreed that AI might eventually replace most economic functions, while others warned of risks — including job loss, loss of skills, and monopolistic control of resources.One user pointed out that building and maintaining the robots themselves would still require engineers, energy, and infrastructure. Another suggested the need for an “AI ombudsman” to oversee the direction AI development takes. Some questioned who would control these technologies, fearing they could become exclusive tools of the elite.
The Future of Coding and Legacy Systems
In a separate discussion, Vembu earlier questioned the continued relevance of older programming languages like C, JavaScript, and SQL. He argued that these tools, though widely used, might not suit the demands of the next century. Modern web development, he noted, is bogged down by the complexity of using multiple programming languages just to build simple interfaces.He suggested that AI could drive the transition away from these legacy systems by forcing the tech world to reimagine the fundamental principles of computing. Far from making engineers redundant, this shift may redefine their work, pushing them toward innovation rather than maintenance.
