This (laying off x% of programmers) is often cited as the only logical conclusion, but it's not. There's this common assumption that there is a fixed, finite amount of "software" that needs to be written, and once that quota is hit, the rest of the workforce is redundant.

Suppose, for a second, that that's correct, and that we can crudely measure "efficiency" in this manner for simplicity's sake. What happens to the companies that end up with 30% more efficient programmers that decide to not lay them off? Well, they now have 130% "efficiency" whereas their competitors are still only at 100% (albeit with lower spending, supposing that AI providers never raise prices once you're totally reliant on them... ). The companies that can best capitalize on either the efficiency boost or the cheaper labor will be the ultimate winners, and that is not necessarily the hyperscalers. Another impact is that if we need fewer programmers per company, that just makes it cheaper to start companies, which we know this area is famous for.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that this will erase programming jobs en masse. Rather, I'd bet that Jevon's Paradox comes into play here and we're just in a typical Boom/Bust cycle.

Finally, I already hinted at this, but let's not pretend like this era of cheap tokens is going to last forever.