Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

sheshbabu.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 434 posts

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#81

Post by bee_rider »

visarga wrote: post #68
empath-nirvana wrote: post #48

I don't really think that thinking of LLMs and related technologies as "Artificial Humans" is the right way to think about how they're going to be integrated into workflows. What is going to happen is that people are going to be adopt these tools to solve particular tasks that are annoying or tedious for developers to do, in a way similar to the way tools like Ansible and Chef replaced the task of logging into ssh se…

> 1) Those tasks that it is still currently only possible for a human to do. 2) Those tasks which are easier and cheaper for a human to do. I agree, but "1" must include all tasks where a mistake could lead to liabilities for the company, which is probably most tasks. LLMs can't be held responsible for their fuckups, they can't be punished, they have no body. It's like the genie from the bottle, it will grant your th…

I think there is some under-explored issue in the liability, but I don’t know enough about business law to have a useful opinion on it. It seems interesting, though.

Even if an LLM and a human were equally competent, the LLM is not a living being and, I guess, isn’t capable of being liable for anything. You can’t sue it or fire it.

Doctors have to carry insurance to handle their liability. I can see why it would be hard to replace a doctor with an LLM as a result.

Typically engineers aren’t personally liable for their mistakes in a corporate setting. (I mean, there’s the whole licensed Professional Engineer distinction, but I don’t feel like dying on that hill at the moment). So where does the liability “go?” I think it just gets eaten by the company somehow. They might fire the engineer, but that doesn’t make the victim whole or benefit society, right?

Ultimately we’d expect companies that are so bad at engineering to get sued so often that they implement process improvements. That could be wrapped around AI’s instead of people, right? But we’re not using the humans’ unique ability to bear liability, I think?

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#82

Post by politician »

visarga wrote: post #68
empath-nirvana wrote: post #48

I don't really think that thinking of LLMs and related technologies as "Artificial Humans" is the right way to think about how they're going to be integrated into workflows. What is going to happen is that people are going to be adopt these tools to solve particular tasks that are annoying or tedious for developers to do, in a way similar to the way tools like Ansible and Chef replaced the task of logging into ssh se…

> 1) Those tasks that it is still currently only possible for a human to do. 2) Those tasks which are easier and cheaper for a human to do. I agree, but "1" must include all tasks where a mistake could lead to liabilities for the company, which is probably most tasks. LLMs can't be held responsible for their fuckups, they can't be punished, they have no body. It's like the genie from the bottle, it will grant your th…

How do you negotiate for a salary when the role is to be ablative armor for the company? "I'm excited to make myself available to absorb potential reputation damage for $CORP when the AI goes off the rails."

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#83

Post by JohnFen »

> In summary, I believe there would still be a market for Software Developers in the foreseeable future, though the nature of work will change

This is precisely what I dread. When it comes to software development specifically, the parts that the AI cheerleaders are excited about AI doing are exactly the parts of the job that I find appealing. If I wanted to be a glorified systems integrator, I would have been doing that job already. The parts that the author is saying will still exist are the parts I put up with in order to do the enjoyable and satisfying work.

So this essay, if it's correct, explains the way that AI threatens my career. Perhaps there is no role for me in the software development world anymore. I'm not saying that's bad in the big picture, just that it's bad for me. It increasingly appears that I've chosen the wrong profession.

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#84

Post by politician »

supriyo-biswas wrote: post #71
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue future engineers should be worried a bit. We no longer need to hire new developers. I was not trained professionally yet I'm writing production code that's passing code reviews in languages I never used. I will create a prompt, validate it compiles, passes tests, have it explain so I understand it was written as expected and write documentation about the code, write the PR, and I am seen as a competent…

To be fair, Leetcode was never a good indicator of developer skills, though primarily because of the time pressure and the restrictive format that dings you for asking questions about the problem.

Speaking of Leetcode... is anyone selling a service to boost Leetcode scores using AI yet? It seems like that's fairly low hanging fruit at this point.

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#85

Post by kossTKR »

Toutouxc wrote: post #32
clktmr wrote: post #26

As long as there is no AGI, no software engineer needs to be worried about their job. And when there is, obviously everything in every field will change and this discussion will soon be futile.

This has been my cope mantra so far. I don't mind if my job changes a lot (and ideally loses the part I dislike the most — writing the actual code), and if I find myself in a position where my entire skillset doesn't matter at all, then well a LOT of people are in trouble.

If you dislike writing code were you pushed into this field by family, education or because of money?

Because not liking code and being a dev is absolutely bizarre to me.

One of the most amazing things about being able to "develop" in my view is exactly in those rare moments where you just code away, time flies, you fix things, iterate, organise your project completely in the zone - just like when i design, paint or play music, do sports uninterrupted, it's that flow state.

In principle i like the social aspects but often they are the shitty part because of business politics, hierarchy games or bureaucracy.

What part of the job do you like then?

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#86

Post by margorczynski »

guappa wrote: post #43
margorczynski wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sure, and who is supposed to understand the code written by AI when we retire? Why someone would need to? Do the product/business people who order creating something understand how it is done and what is Git, a webserver etc.? It is based on trust and if you can show the AI system can consistently achieve at least humanlike quality and speed on almost any development task then there is no need to have a technical p…

So there could never be a new provider or a new protocol because AI wouldn't be able to use them or create them. You can just make websites on pre-approved list.

> So there could never be a new provider or a new protocol because AI wouldn't be able to use them or create them

On what do you base this? Is there some upper bound to the potential in AI reasoning that bounds it skill to creating anything more complex? I think it is on the contrary - it is humans who are bound by our biological and evolutionary hard limits, the machine is not.

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#87

Post by gtirloni »

empath-nirvana wrote: post #48

I don't really think that thinking of LLMs and related technologies as "Artificial Humans" is the right way to think about how they're going to be integrated into workflows. What is going to happen is that people are going to be adopt these tools to solve particular tasks that are annoying or tedious for developers to do, in a way similar to the way tools like Ansible and Chef replaced the task of logging into ssh se…

I think this is the sanest comment I've seen about LLMs.

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#88

Post by gtirloni »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #55

This is the future of software development: > The Administration will work with Congress and the private sector to develop legislation establishing liability for software products and services. Any such legislation should prevent manufacturers and software publishers with market power from fully disclaiming liability by contract, and establish higher standards of care for software in specific high-risk scenarios. To…

LLMs are already being stripped of their "magic" by AI safety efforts.

This will only limit them further until they are nothing more than a fancy API endpoint, almost like the "old" APIs but consuming 1000x more energy.

I bet these "standards of care for secure software development" will demand a very deterministic API be put in front of the LLMs to ensure only approved output passes through. At which point I question the useful of such a solution.

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#89

Post by sameoldtune »

vouaobrasil wrote: post #10

I've been using computers since I was about 12...long time ago. What I've come to the conclusion is this: the best programs and the best tools are the ones that are lovingly (and perhaps with a bit of hate too) crafted by their developers. The best software ecosystems are the ones that are developed slowly and with care. AI coding seems all wrong compared to that world. In fact, the only reason why there is a push fo…

[dead]

Re: Thoughts on the Future of Software Development

#90

Post by JohnFen »

pegasus wrote: post #28
couchand wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I mean it’s definitely a weaker argument than 2 years ago. Is it? I see no evidence that machines are any closer to "thinking creatively" than they ever have been. We certainly have been developing our capacity for computation to a great extent, but it's not at all evident that statistical methods and creativity are the same thing.

> is it? It is. And I bet most people would agree with GP. Most people (including engineers building these systems) have experienced surprise with some of the outputs of these models. Is there anything better to gauge creativity by than perceived surprise?

> Is there anything better to gauge creativity by than perceived surprise?

I think there has to be, since such surprise can be generated through purely random mechanisms, and I don't think anyone would call a purely random mechanism "creative".

Post reply on HN