Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs? • Hacker News Board

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#261

Post by munk-a » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:01 PM UTC

simianparrot wrote: post #156

idopmstuff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I think that’s generations away at best. I'm not sure whether you mean human generations or LLM generations, but I think it's the latter. In that case, I agree with you, but also that doesn't seem to put you particularly far off from OP, who didn't provide specific timelines but also seems to be indicating that the elimination of most engineers is still a little ways away. Since we're seeing a new generation of…

I mean human generations because to do system architecture, design and development well you need something that can at least match an average human brain in reasoning, logic and learning plasticity. I don’t think that’s impossible but I think we’re quite a few human generations away from that. And scaling LLM’s is not the solution to that problem; an LLM is just a small but important part of it.

I'd be cautious as describing anything in tech as human generations away because we're only about a single human generation into a lot of this industry existing.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#262

Post by RangerScience » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:03 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #244

IshKebab wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some expectation that these things won't improve? I definitely expect them to improve. But I also think the point at which they can actually replace a senior programmer is pretty much the exact point at which they can replace any knowledge worker, at which point western society (possibly all society) is in way deeper shit than just me being out of a job. > This is ego speaking. It definitely isn't. LLMs ar…

If a LLM (or any other tool) makes so that team of 8 can get the same results in the same time as it used to take a team of 10 to do, then I would count that as "replaced 2 programmers" - even if there's no particular person for which the whole job has been replaced, that's not a meaningful practical difference, replacing a significant fraction of every programmer's job has the same outcomes and impacts as replacing…

Fav anecdote from ages ago:

When hand-held power tools became a thing, the Hollywood set builder’s union was afraid of this exact same thing - people would be replaced by the tools.

Instead, productions built bigger sets (the ceiling was raised) and smaller productions could get in on things (the floor was lowered).

I always took that to mean “people aren’t going to spend less to do the job - they’ll just do a bigger job.”

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#263

Post by janalsncm » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:03 PM UTC

thegrim33 wrote: post #71

I don't worry about it, because: 1) I believe we need true AGI to replace developers. 2) I don't believe LLMs are currently AGI or that if we just feed them more compute during training that they'll magically become AGI. 3) Even if we did invent AGI soon and replace developers, I wouldn't even really care, because the invention of AGI would be such an insanely impactful, world changing, event that who knows what the…

To replace all developers, we need AGI yes. To replace many developers? No. If one developer can do the same work as 5 could previously, unless the amount of work expands then 4 developers are going to be looking for a job.

Therefore, unless you for some reason believe you will be in the shrinking portion that cannot be replaced I think the question deserves more attention than “nothing”.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#264

Post by simianparrot » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:05 PM UTC

jensensbutton wrote: post #248

simianparrot wrote: post #80

Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I have a job at a place I love and get more people in my direct network and extended contacting me about work than ever before in my 20 year career. And finally I keep myself sharp by always making sure I challenge myself creatively. I’m not afraid to delve into areas to understand them that might look “…

The question isn't about what you'll do when you're replaced by an LLM, it's what you're doing to future proof your job. There is a difference. The risk to hedge against is the productivity boost brought by LLMs resulting in a drop in the needs for new software engineers. This will put pressure on jobs (simply don't need as many as we used to so we're cutting 15%) AND wages (more engineers looking for fewer jobs with…

I'm future proofing my job by ensuring I remain someone whose brain is tuned to solving complex problems, and to do that most effectively I find ways to keep being engaged in both the fundamentals of programming (as already mentioned) and the higher-level aspects: Teaching others (which in turn teaches me new things) and being in leadership roles where I can make real architectural choices in terms of what hardware to run our software on.

I'm far more worried about mental degradation due to any number of circumstances -- unlucky genetics, infections, what have you. But "future proofing" myself against some of that has the same answer: Remain curious, remain mentally ambidextrous, and don't let other people (or objects) think for me.

My brain is my greatest asset both for my job and my private life. So I do what I can to keep it in good shape, which incidentally also means replacing me with a parrot is unlikely to be a good decision.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#265

Post by arisAlexis » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

simianparrot wrote: post #80

Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I have a job at a place I love and get more people in my direct network and extended contacting me about work than ever before in my 20 year career. And finally I keep myself sharp by always making sure I challenge myself creatively. I’m not afraid to delve into areas to understand them that might look “…

So your argument is:

There is some tech that is getting progressively better.

I am high on the linear scale

Therefore I don't worry about it cathing up to me ever

And this is the top voted argument.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#266

Post by luckylion » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:07 PM UTC

jensensbutton wrote: post #248

simianparrot wrote: post #80

Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I have a job at a place I love and get more people in my direct network and extended contacting me about work than ever before in my 20 year career. And finally I keep myself sharp by always making sure I challenge myself creatively. I’m not afraid to delve into areas to understand them that might look “…

The question isn't about what you'll do when you're replaced by an LLM, it's what you're doing to future proof your job. There is a difference. The risk to hedge against is the productivity boost brought by LLMs resulting in a drop in the needs for new software engineers. This will put pressure on jobs (simply don't need as many as we used to so we're cutting 15%) AND wages (more engineers looking for fewer jobs with…

Are you though? Until the AI-augmented developer provides better code at lower cost, I'm not seeing it. Senior developers aren't paid well because they can write code very fast, it's because they can make good decision and deliver projects that not only work, but can be maintained and built upon for years to come.

I know a few people who have been primarily programming for 10 years but are not seniors. 5 of them (probably 10 or more, but let's not overdo it), with AI, cannot replace one senior developer unless you make that senior do super basic tasks.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#267

Post by simianparrot » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

rybosworld wrote: post #172

hmillison wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there's a lot more involved in senior dev work beyond producing code that works. if the stakeholders knew how to do what they needed to build and how, then they could use LLMs, but translating complex requirements into code is something that these tools are not even close to cracking.

> there's a lot more involved in senior dev work beyond producing code that works. Completely agree. What I don't agree with is statements like these: > LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test To me, these (false) absolutions about chat bot capabilities, are being rehashed so frequently, that it derails every conversation about using LLM's for dev work. You'll find similar statements in nearly every thread a…

The code working is the bare minimum. The code being right for the project and context is the basic expectation. The code being _good_ at solving its intended problem is the desired outcome, which is a combination of tradeoffs between performance, readability, ease of refactoring later, modularity, etc.

LLM's can sometimes provide the bare minimum. And then you have to refactor and massage it all the way to the good bit, but unlike looking up other people's endeavors on something like Stack Overflow, with the LLM's code I have no context why it "thought" that was a good idea. If I ask it, it may parrot something from the relevant training set, or it might be bullshitting completely. The end result? This is _more_ work for a senior dev, not less.

Hence why it has never passed my sniff test. Its code is at best the quality of code even junior developers wouldn't open a PR for yet. Or if they did they'd be asked to explain how and why and quickly learn to not open the code for review before they've properly considered the implications.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#268

Post by sigmarule » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

RangerScience wrote: post #262

PeterisP wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a LLM (or any other tool) makes so that team of 8 can get the same results in the same time as it used to take a team of 10 to do, then I would count that as "replaced 2 programmers" - even if there's no particular person for which the whole job has been replaced, that's not a meaningful practical difference, replacing a significant fraction of every programmer's job has the same outcomes and impacts as replacing…

Fav anecdote from ages ago: When hand-held power tools became a thing, the Hollywood set builder’s union was afraid of this exact same thing - people would be replaced by the tools. Instead, productions built bigger sets (the ceiling was raised) and smaller productions could get in on things (the floor was lowered). I always took that to mean “people aren’t going to spend less to do the job - they’ll just do a bigger…

This could very well prove to be the case in software engineering, but also could very well not; what is the equivalent of "larger sets" in our domain, and is that something that is even preferable to begin with? Should we build larger codebases just because we _can_? I'd say likely not, while it does make sense to build larger/more elaborate movie sets because they could.

Also, a piece missing from this comparison is a set of people who don't believe the new tool will actually have a measurable impact on their domain. I assume few-to-none could argue that power tools would have no impact on their profession.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#269

Post by deegles » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:12 PM UTC

rybosworld wrote: post #85

simianparrot wrote: post #80

Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I have a job at a place I love and get more people in my direct network and extended contacting me about work than ever before in my 20 year career. And finally I keep myself sharp by always making sure I challenge myself creatively. I’m not afraid to delve into areas to understand them that might look “…

> Nothing because I’m a senior and LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test, and it remains a waste of time. I am constantly surprised how prevalent this attitude is. ChatGPT was only just released in 2022. Is there some expectation that these things won't improve? > LLM’s never provide code that pass my sniff test This is ego speaking.

LLMs as they currently exist will never yield a true, actually-sentient AI. maybe they will get better in some ways, but it's like asking if a bird will ever fly to the moon. Something else is needed.

Re: Ask HN: SWEs how do you future-proof your career in light of LLMs?

#270

Post by IshKebab » Mon, Dec 16, 2024, 10:14 PM UTC

PeterisP wrote: post #244

IshKebab wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there some expectation that these things won't improve? I definitely expect them to improve. But I also think the point at which they can actually replace a senior programmer is pretty much the exact point at which they can replace any knowledge worker, at which point western society (possibly all society) is in way deeper shit than just me being out of a job. > This is ego speaking. It definitely isn't. LLMs ar…

If a LLM (or any other tool) makes so that team of 8 can get the same results in the same time as it used to take a team of 10 to do, then I would count that as "replaced 2 programmers" - even if there's no particular person for which the whole job has been replaced, that's not a meaningful practical difference, replacing a significant fraction of every programmer's job has the same outcomes and impacts as replacing…

> then I would count that as "replaced 2 programmers"

Well then you can count IDEs, static typing, debuggers, version control etc. as replacing programmers too. But I don't think any of those performance enhancers have really reduced the number of programmers needed.

In fact it's a well known paradox that making a job more efficient can increase the number of people doing that job. It's called the Jevons paradox (thanks ChatGPT - probably wouldn't have been able to find that with Google!)

Making people 20% more efficient is very different to entirely replacing them.