从目前的市场反馈和投资趋势来看，One thing that allowed software to evolve much faster than most other human fields is the fact the discipline is less anchored to patents and protections (and this, in turn, is likely as it is because of a sharing culture around the software). If the copyright law were more stringent, we could likely not have what we have today. Is the protection of single individuals' interests and companies more important than the general evolution of human culture? I don’t think so, and, besides, the copyright law is a common playfield: the rules are the same for all. Moreover, it is not a stretch to say that despite a more relaxed approach, software remains one of the fields where it is simpler to make money; it does not look like the business side was impacted by the ability to reimplement things. Probably, the contrary is true: think of how many businesses were made possible by an open source software stack (not that OSS is mostly made of copies, but it definitely inherited many ideas about past systems). I believe, even with AI, those fundamental tensions remain all valid. Reimplementations are cheap to make, but this is the new playfield for all of us, and just reimplementing things in an automated fashion, without putting something novel inside, in terms of ideas, engineering, functionalities, will have modest value in the long run. What will matter is the exact way you create something: Is it well designed, interesting to use, supported, somewhat novel, fast, documented and useful? Moreover, this time the inbalance of force is in the right direction: big corporations always had the ability to spend obscene amounts of money in order to copy systems, provide them in a way that is irresistible for users (free, for many years, for instance, to later switch model) and position themselves as leaders of ideas they didn’t really invent. Now, small groups of individuals can do the same to big companies' software systems: they can compete on ideas now that a synthetic workforce is cheaper for many.