> it will be sure way of selecting yourself out of the work pool

If, as an engineer, you rely completely on AI then you will be selected out of the work pool. Some engineers will still be needed. If I was interviewing them (I used to do a lot of this) then I will want the ones who understand the code. If they only use AI then it will quickly become clear that they don't understand it. Why would I hire them when another person can understand it?

Yes, but let's not fall on the false dichotomy trap. The options aren't only "reject AI" and "completely rely on AI".

The whole "it's like the printing press, cars, computers, etc etc" is a weak, blunt comparison. Not only are all those things, AI included, very different from each other, but even accepting the premise, critics of technology often had/have reasonable arguments.

It's a disappointingly un-thoughtful quip to see on HN so commonly. It's the kind of thing I would mostly expect to hear from non-technical people out in public spaces.

In this context, a "car" is a vehicle with some sort of engine, as opposed to a horse, mule, carriage or other animal-powered vehicle. Those who rejected cars when they came out would also happily reject buses, cabs and even trains.

A more up-to-date analogy would probably be the people who refuse to fly in commercial aviation.

> it will be sure way of selecting yourself out of the work pool

i'm ok with that

It must be nice have no economic needs and have no dependents

It is