““The spread of computers and the Internet will put jobs in two categories, people who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do.””—
Marc Andressen.
Andressen falls into a common logical fallacy here, in that he assumes that all problems are solvable by programming. His point of view is common in terms of his place in the world, but he forgets an important category of work: interpreting what computers do. In my experience, even the best software can’t tell you what something means, unless you’ve identified the specific range of values that denote a specific meaning.
In short, Andressen forgets jobs like his own; interpretation, planning, and making bets.
Rafael Fajardo: I think that @AttentionIndustry may oversimplify and, hence, fall prey to another error in logic. Andreesen interprets and plans from the perspective of knowing (or having known) how to code. It will also be possible to interpret what computers do without knowing how to code. This is a kind of reception/perception theory approach. These two approaches will likely remain in tension with each other, either side feeling that the other is insufficient to explain the phenomena. Knowledge creation will require a “yes, and…” approach.