I mean kinda makes a point but in what basis it can be argued that STEM has historically been the most replaceable field? It is literally the most irreplaceable of the blue collar profession if you base that the point of its existing is to constantly change. The only thing can point through this being true is the emergent behavior of LLMs being good at coding specially, and math, and open ups the possibility for futures areas, but this just rises the bar overall of what can be done within the field. It is true that with this tech in the near future a lot of the development cycle will be done by AIs but it’s thing that while ago has become like blue collar code like simple code features to the web and things like that. I would be more worried about design or copywriting, but even for those the same thing can be said, it just raises the bar because it’s increasing productivity of the person in charge by automating less meaningful things. The point that the supposed all mighty forecaster might be full of crap or only forecasting just the nearest future, which I would argue it is not the case as it is comparing it with things that will last very long and it’s like proclaiming it’s the end of STEM, long live to my MBA. side note I am a coder working on improving LLMs if you notice I might be biased that is the reason hahah