Peak programmer has passed: the economic value of writing code by hand has peaked, and Jevons' paradox will not bail every programmer out.

What this subject means

AI and jobs Whether AI displaces human work, which jobs go first, and what replaces them.

What David Heinemeier Hansson actually said

Holders over time

Do you hold this korrent?Do you also believe this?

In tension with

Demand for intelligence is highly elastic — every fall in inference cost is met with rapidly growing usage.

Rauch says demand for intelligence is highly elastic and every fall in inference cost is met with rapidly growing usage — the Jevons argument. Hansson says peak programmer has passed and that Jevons will not bail every programmer out. They agree the usage grows and disagree about who is paid for it.
In tension with

The pie of software work is exploding, not growing: with the cost of exploring a hunch down a thousandfold, projects nobody would have contemplated get done.

Hansson holds both: that the economic value of writing code by hand has peaked and Jevons will not rescue every programmer, and that the pie of software work is exploding because exploring a hunch got a thousand times cheaper. An exploding volume of work and a peaked value for doing it are not contradictory, and the space between them is where the argument about what programmers should do next actually is.

Shared subject first, then similar wording. They may agree or disagree.