Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

291–300 of 1001 posts

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

#291

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 arrogance of comments like this is amazing. I think it's an interesting psychological phenomenon similar to virtue signalling. Here you are signalling to the programmer in-group how good of a programmer you are. The more dismissive you are the better you look. Anyone worried about it reveals themself as a bad coder. It's a luxury belief, and the better LLMs get the better you look by dismissing them.

This is spot on.

It's essentially like saying "What I do in particular, is much too difficult for an AI to ever replicate." It is always in part, humble bragging.

I think some developers like to pretend that they are exclusively solving problems that have never been solved before. Which sure, the LLM architecture in particular might never be better than a person for the novel class of problem.

But the reality is, an extremely high percentage of all problems (and by reduction, the lines of code that build that solution) are not novel. I would guesstimate that less than 1 out of 10,000 developers are solving truly novel problems with any regularity. And those folks tend to work at places like Google Brain.

That's relevant because LLM's can likely scale forever in terms of solving the already solved.

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

#292
post #175
post #25

Back in the late 80s and early 90s there was a craze called CASE - Computer-Aided Software Engineering. The idea was humans really suck at writing code, but we're really good at modeling and creating specifications. Tools like Rational Rose arose during this era, as did Booch notation which eventually became part of UML. The problem was it never worked. When generating the code, the best the tools could do was create…

I worked on CASE, and generally agree with this. I think it's important to note that there were a couple distinct markets for CASE: 1. Military/aerospace/datacomm/medical type technical development. Where you were building very complex things, that integrated into larger systems, that had to work, with teams, and you used higher-level formalisms when appropriate. 2. "MIS" (Management Information Systems) in-house/int…

As I recall, the biggest problem from the last go-around was the models and implementation were two different sets of artifacts and therefore were guaranteed to diverge. If we move to a modern incarnation where the AI is generating the implementation from the models and humans are no longer doing that task, then it may work as the models will now be the only existing set of artifacts.

But I was definitely in camp #2 - the in-house business applications. I'd love to hear the experiences from those in camp #1. To your point, once IBM got involved it all went south. There was a place I was working for in the early 90s that really turned me off against anything "enterprise" from IBM. I had yet to learn that would apply to pretty much every vendor! :)

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

#293

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…

Code is a liability, not an asset. It is a necessary evil to create functional software.

Senior devs know this, and factor code down to the minimum necessary.

Junior devs and LLMs think that writing code is the point and will generate lots of it without worrying about things like leverage, levels of abstraction, future extensibility, etc.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> This is ego speaking. No, it really isn't. Repeatedly, the case is that people are trying to pass off GPT's work as good without actually verifying the output. I keep seeing "look at this wonderful script GPT made for me to do X", and it does not pass code review , and is generally extremely low quality. In one example, a bash script was generated to count number SLoC changed by author; it was extremely convoluted,…

I think fundamentally if all you do is glue together popular OSS libraries in well understood way, then yes. You may be replaced. But really you probably could be replaced by a Wordpress plugin at that point.

The moment you have some weird library that 4 people in the world know (which happens more than you’d expect) or hell even something without a lot of OSS code what exactly is an LLM going to do? How is it supposed to predict code that’s not derived from its training set?

My experience thus far is that it starts hallucinating and it’s not really gotten any better at it.

I’ll continue using it to generate sed and awk commands, but I’ve yet to find a way to make my life easier with the “hard bits” I want help with.

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

#295
post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intellisense style systems were a huge feature leap when they gained wider language support and reliability. LLMs are yet another step forward for intellisense and the effort of comprehending the code you're altering. I don't think I will ever benefit from code generation in a serious setting (it's excellent for prototyping) simply due to the fact that it's solving the easy problem (write some code) while creating a…

> I can already type faster than I can think. But can you write tickets faster than you can implement them? I certainly can.

Depends on the ticket.

If it's "Get us to the moon", it's gonna take me years to write that ticket.

If it was "Make the CTA on the homepage red", it is up for debate whether I needed a ticket at all.

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

#296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Is there any expectations that things will? Is there more untapped great quality data that LLMs can ingest? Will a larger model perform meaningfully better? Will it solve the pervasive issue of generating plausibly sounding bullshit? I used LLMs for a while, I…

> Is there any expectations that things will? Seems like an odd question. The answer is obviously yes: There is a very pervasive expectation that LLM's will continue to improve, and it seems odd to suggest otherwise. There is hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on AI training and that number is increasing each year. > Is there more untapped great quality data that LLMs can ingest? Why wouldn't there be? AI's…

We recently had a few submissions about this topic. Most recently Ilyas talk. Further improvement will be a research type problem. This trend was clear for a while already, but is reaching the mainstream now. The billions of dollar spend goes into scaling existing technology. If it doesn't scale anymore and becomes a resarch problem again, rational companies will not continue to invest in this area (at least without the usual research arrangements).

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

#297
(10+ years of experience here) I will be starting training for commercial pilot license next year. The pay is much less than one of a software engineer but I think this job is already done for most of us, only the top 5% will survive. I don’t think I’m part of that top and don’t want to go to management or PO roles so I am done with tech

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

#298

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 “…

> CPU-only custom 2D pixel blitter engine I wrote to make 2D games in styles practically impossible with modern GPU-based texture rendering engines

I’m curious what’s so special about that blitting?

BTW, pixel shaders in D3D11 can receive screen-space pixel coordinates in SV_Position semantic. The pixel shader can cast .xy slice of that value from float2 to int2 (truncating towards 0), offset the int2 vector to be relative to the top-left of the sprite, then pass the integers into Texture2D.Load method.

Unlike the more commonly used Texture2D.Sample, Texture2D.Load method delivers a single texel as stored in the texture i.e. no filtering, sampling or interpolations. The texel is identified by integer coordinates, as opposed to UV floats for the Sample method.

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

#299

I see this sort of take from a lot of people and I always tell them to do the same exercise. A cure for baseless fears. Pick an LLM. Any LLM. Ask it what the goat river crossing puzzle is. With luck, it will tell you about the puzzle involving a boatman, a goat, some vegetable, and some predator. If it doesn’t, it’s disqualified. Now ask it to do the same puzzle but with two goats and a cabbage (or whatever vegetable…

emmmmm... i think your argument is not valid any more: https://chatgpt.com/c/6760a0a0-fa34-800c-9ef4-78c76c71e03b

Seems like they caught up because I have posted this before including in chatGPT. All that means is you have to change it up slightly.

Unfortunately “change it up slightly” is not good enough for people to do anything with, and anything more specific just trains the LLM eventually so it stops proving the point.

I cannot load this link though.

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

#300
I'm 15 years in, so a little behind you, but this is also some observations from the perspective of a student during the Post-Dot-Com bust.

A great parallel of today's LLMs was the Outsourcing mania from 20 years ago. It was worse than AGI because actual living breathing thinking people would write your code. After the Dot-Bomb implosion, a bunch of companies turned to outsourcing as a way to skirt costs for expensive US programmers. In their mind, a manager can produce a spec that was sent to an oversees team to implement. A "Prompt" if you will. But as time wore on, the hype wore off with every broken and spaghettified app. Businesses were stung back into hiring back programmers, but not before destroying a whole pipeline of CS graduates for many years. It fueled a surge in demand in programmers against a small supply that didn't abate until the latter half of the 2010s.

Like most things in life, a little outsourcing never hurt anybody but a lot can kill your company.

> My prediction is that junior to mid level software engineering will disappear

Agree with some qualifications. I think LLMs will follow a similar disillusionment as outsourcing, but not before decimating the profession in both headcount and senior experience. The pipeline of Undergrad->Intern/Jr->Mid->Sr development experience will stop, creating even more demand for the existing (and now dwindling) senior talent. If you can rough it for the next few years the employee pool will be smaller and businesses will ask wHeRe dId aLl tHe pRoGrAmMeRs gO?! just like last time. We're going to lose entire classes of CS graduates for years before companies reverse course, and then it will take several more years to steward another generation of CS grads through the curriculum.

AI companies sucking up all the funding out of the room isn't helping with the pipeline either.

In the end it'll be nearly a decade before the industry recovers its ability to create new programmers.

> So, fellow software engineers, how do you future-proof your career in light of, the inevitable, LLM take over?

Funnily enough, probably start a business or that cool project you've had in the back of your mind. Now is the time to keep your skills sharp. LLMs are good enough to help with some of those rote tasks as long as you are diligent.

I think LLMs will fit into future tooling as souped-up Language Servers and be another tool in our belt. I also foresee a whole field of predictive BI tools that lean on LLMs hallucinating plausible futures that can be prompted with (for example) future newspaper headlines. There's also tons of technical/algorithmic domains ruled by Heuristics that could possibly be improved by the tech behind LLMs. Imagine a compiler that understands your code and applies more weight on some heuristics and/or optimizations. In short, keeping up with the tools will be useful long after the hype train derails.

People skills are perennially useful. It's often forgotten that programming is two domains; the problem domain and the computation domain. Two people in each domain can build Mechanical Sympathy that blurs the boundaries between the two. However the current state of LLMs does not have this expertise, so the LLM user must grasp both the technical and problem domains to properly vet what the LLMs return from a prompt.

Also keep yourself alive, even if that means leaving the profession for something else for the time being. The Software Engineer Crisis is over 50 years old at this point, and LLMs don't appear to be the Silver Bullet.

tl;dr: Businesses saw the early 2000s and said "More please, but with AI!" Stick it out in "The Suck" for the next couple of years until businesses start demanding people again. AI can be cool and useful if you keep your head firmly on your shoulders.

Post reply on HN