Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
lennysnewsletter.com
Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
1–9 of 9 posts
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#2> Far more worry about being expected to do more for the same pay (51%), getting trapped in an unsustainable pace (46%)
This is a feature, not a bug. Not for us (engineers), but for our bosses, ofc
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#3I'm watching as AI afficianados generate code and place copyright licenses on them with some amusement. It's AI generated, so copyright does not apply, nor do your licenses. If you want to argue otherwise, then you have failed to realize that work-for-hire is only automatic for human employees, not AI. So if AI generated code ever does enjoy copyright protection, it's owned by Anthropic and friends, once again, not you.
I'm not using AI agents. I'm not worried about getting left behind. I'm keeping my skills sharp while AI users let theirs dull. My code still enjoys the force of copyright, while they sit precariously between no copyright or copyright they don't own.
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#4I'm watching as AI afficianados generate code and place copyright licenses on them with some amusement. It's AI generated, so copyright does not apply, nor do your licenses. If you want to argue otherwise, then you have failed to realize that work-for-hire is only automatic for human employees, not AI. So if AI generated code ever does enjoy copyright protection, it's owned by Anthropic and friends, once again, not y…
Does that mean using IDE auto-completes renders your code property of VSCode, IntelliJ, etc.?
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#5I have watched multiple times now where those most excited are the least capable. They prompt something out of an LLM and feel the thrill of vicarious creativity. They have never been able to do something like this before, and it feels good.
They show their barely working demo to management who is also excited. It kind of works if you don't look too closely, but includes features and screens no one asked for or can explain, tables and graphs which turn out to be static artifacts using made up data (in one case I saw a pie graph which when summed, exceeded 100%), is a security nightmare, and simple changes must be made across the handful of functions which are hundreds or thousands of lines long, because there is no separation of concerns.
Eventually they turn this steaming pile of "prototype" over to an engineer who is asked to get it ready to ship because "the product team was having trouble adding the few extra features, but it should be easy, just use AI".
I can't tell if this is stupidity, an elaborate joke, or maybe I am already dead and this is some kind of purgatory.
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#6I'm watching as AI afficianados generate code and place copyright licenses on them with some amusement. It's AI generated, so copyright does not apply, nor do your licenses. If you want to argue otherwise, then you have failed to realize that work-for-hire is only automatic for human employees, not AI. So if AI generated code ever does enjoy copyright protection, it's owned by Anthropic and friends, once again, not y…
I don't know where you get this idea. A human being who used AI to generate something may actually claim copyright over the product.
You might be getting confused with a court case that ruled that AI could not have sole copyright, but that case just says that only a human being can hold copyright.
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#7I'm watching as AI afficianados generate code and place copyright licenses on them with some amusement. It's AI generated, so copyright does not apply, nor do your licenses. If you want to argue otherwise, then you have failed to realize that work-for-hire is only automatic for human employees, not AI. So if AI generated code ever does enjoy copyright protection, it's owned by Anthropic and friends, once again, not y…
I don't know where you get this idea. A human being who used AI to generate something may actually claim copyright over the product. You might be getting confused with a court case that ruled that AI could not have sole copyright, but that case just says that only a human being can hold copyright.
>I don't know where you get this idea.
I got the idea by reading the law,
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922
For example, the copyright is valid for X years after the author's death. The copyright transfers to the author's "widow or widower" or "surviving children or grandchildren". Does AI die? Who is the AI's widow? Who is the AI's children and grandchildren?
Oh, yeah, you're just wrong. The law explicity states that copyright belongs to HUMAN authors. Not AI. And courts have repeatedly ruled AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You're the one who seems a little confused.
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#8I'm watching as AI afficianados generate code and place copyright licenses on them with some amusement. It's AI generated, so copyright does not apply, nor do your licenses. If you want to argue otherwise, then you have failed to realize that work-for-hire is only automatic for human employees, not AI. So if AI generated code ever does enjoy copyright protection, it's owned by Anthropic and friends, once again, not y…
Does that mean using IDE auto-completes renders your code property of VSCode, IntelliJ, etc.?
Let's roll out the next dumb cope that every vibe coder replies with... code templates. Code templates are generated by humans. Did you know that copyright law applies to them and if the code template is GPL, then the code it generates is also GPL? Oh, you didn't know that, did you?
https://opensource.org/license/gpl-2.0
>the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program
Read your licenses.
Re: Tech workers in 2026: a workforce splitting in two
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where you get this idea. A human being who used AI to generate something may actually claim copyright over the product. You might be getting confused with a court case that ruled that AI could not have sole copyright, but that case just says that only a human being can hold copyright.
>I don't know where you get this idea. I got the idea by reading the law, https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 For example, the copyright is valid for X years after the author's death. The copyright transfers to the author's "widow or widower" or "surviving children or grandchildren". Does AI die? Who is the AI's widow? Who is the AI's children and grandchildren? Oh, yeah, you're just wrong. The law explicit…
> Oh, yeah, you're just wrong. The law explicity states that copyright belongs to HUMAN authors. Not AI. And courts have repeatedly ruled AI generated work cannot be copyrighted. You're the one who seems a little confused.
No, I'm not confused. Go actually read your own link before you get condescending with me:
> Assuming that copyrightable works require a human author, works created by humans with the assistance of generative AI might be entitled to copyright protection depending on the nature of human involvement in the creative process.
The only settled legal finding is that copyright must be assigned to human beings.
The guidance of the Copyright Registration Office is not legally binding, which is where I think you may be confused. You do not need to register copyrights because they exist intrinsically when you create works.
If push comes to shove, you prove this in civil court to sue someone. They can argue a fair use defense. For example, training LLMs on copyrighted text has been repeatedly ruled fair use, as a transformative work.
The law is quite clear that how a work was created does not matter for copyright. All that matters is whether or not a thing qualifies as an original work of authorship. The boundaries of what AI-generated work can be copyrighted will be tested in court in the coming years.