Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei recently graced the digital masses with a prediction that should, in a sane world, have sent the global labor force into a reflective silence. Instead, it triggered the usual Pavlovian barking from the usual suspects. Amodei suggests that AI will likely handle the bulk of software coding within a year. In response, the internet—that great, steaming compost heap of human insecurity—did what it does best: it turned a systemic existential crisis into a petty tribal squabble. On one side, we have the MAGA faithful, whose grasp of macroeconomics is roughly equivalent to a toddler’s understanding of thermodynamics, wondering why we bother importing H-1B visa holders from India if a motherboard can do the job. On the other, we have the Indian tech contingent, frantically rebranding themselves as 'AI supervisors,' a title that carries all the long-term career stability of a chimney sweep in 1910.

Let’s begin with the American protectionist, a creature of pure, unfiltered nostalgia. The logic here is as fascinating as it is flawed: if the machines are taking the jobs, we must first ensure that the jobs they haven't taken yet are held only by people born within specific longitudinal coordinates. It’s a delightful bit of xenophobia masquerading as technological foresight. They see AI not as a global shift that renders the very concept of a 'career' obsolete, but as a convenient excuse to close the borders. It’s the 'dey took er jerbs' South Park mantra updated for the Silicon Age, blissfully ignoring the fact that the AI doesn’t care about your passport, your flag, or your pathetic little border wall. The AI isn't an immigrant; it’s an extinction event for the middle class, yet the MAGA crowd is still trying to check its papers at the gate.

Then we have the Indian tech sector’s response, which is a masterclass in corporate cope. Their argument is that they will 'adapt' by becoming the 'reviewers' of AI-generated code. It is a pathetic, whimpering defense. To suggest that a human will remain relevant by 'reviewing' the work of a machine that functions a million times faster and with increasing accuracy is like a carrier pigeon claiming it has a future as a consultant for the telegraph office. The arrogance required to believe that your fleshy, slow-moving brain provides a necessary 'human touch' to a string of binary logic is the ultimate delusion of the digital age. You aren't 'supervising' the AI; you are simply the last person holding the lightbulb before the room goes pitch black. You are a transitional liability, a bottleneck that the efficiency of capital will route around with the cold indifference of a mountain stream flowing over a pebble.

And let us not forget the source of this prophecy: the Tech CEO. Amodei and his ilk are not prophets; they are salesmen. They are selling the very rope that the global workforce is currently measuring for its own neck. By announcing the death of coding, they aren't just predicting the future; they are manifesting a reality where labor has zero leverage. If you can convince the world that skill is irrelevant because the machine has mastered it, you have successfully broken the back of the professional class. The CEO wins, the machine wins, and the humans are left to argue on X about whether the person getting laid off should be an American or an Indian. It is a spectacle of such profound stupidity that one almost wishes the AI would hurry up and finish the job.

The H-1B visa, once the golden ticket to a suburban life and a mid-level Tesla, is becoming a voucher for a seat on a sinking ship. Whether you are a MAGA supporter shouting into the void about 'domestic talent' or an Indian engineer claiming 'adaptability,' you are both fighting for the right to be the most efficient servant to a silicon god that doesn't need you. The tragedy isn't that the jobs are going away; the tragedy is that humanity’s final act is a localized, nationalistic argument over who gets to be the most redundant. We are witnessing the democratization of obsolescence, and yet we still insist on checking the ethnicity of the person standing next to us in the unemployment line. It would be funny if it weren't so predictably pathetic. We are a species that would argue over the seating chart on the Titanic while the iceberg is already in the ballroom.