Earlier quoted context omitted.
More resilient than Elon, Zucker & co for sure; more human to begin with.
Both of them started as software developers.
So?
They're not anymore, are they?
And plenty of developers don't.
Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
121–130 of 145 posts
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#122Because Devs are expensive and incomprehensible to most people.
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#123From 2011: "Don’t call yourself a programmer: “Programmer” sounds like “anomalously high-cost peon who types some mumbo-jumbo into some other mumbo-jumbo.” If you call yourself a programmer, someone is already working on a way to get you fired. You know Salesforce, widely perceived among engineers to be a Software as a Services company? Their motto and sales point is “No Software”, which conveys to their actual custo…
Good thing everybody hates Salesforce.
but still uses it
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#124[flagged]
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Counter point though- what if it was trained on your specific code base? Wouldn't it be able to then help with those given nuances? The code base I have I would love to be able to just give some AI free reign and learn the structure since a lot of it is fairly repetitive; I know it would be so easy to say "hey add X just like Y" and it would be able to do it easily.
The rare times where I have no good idea what to do, it is faster to code with an LLM. The rest of the time, when I know just what I want, it takes longer for me to formulate it, query the LLM and discuss and validate its output. My more experienced/senior colleagues all say roughly the same. It’s great help for our juniors though. They learn a lot and are more capable on their own with the AI assistance. It’s improv…
> I am developing an evaluation suite so I can keep watching the progress in a systematic way..
Sounds like something that should be published on github
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#126One word: money. They (CEOs and executives, shareholders, etc) don't like how much it costs to make software. They think software engineers make too much money. You (a human) are always a cost they will try to reduce.
Yeah, this is pretty much the answer when it comes to jobs. I mean why do people do their own oil changes, instead of leaving the job to their mechanic? Why would anyone try to replace their mechanic? You might argue for trust, quality, or time reasons, but arguably only so because of how they relate to costs.
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#127They are trying one last gamble to keep the bubble from popping. Most of the software companies don't make sense unless you can fire half your staff.
The idea that this is possible justifies the AI bubble and the software bubble at the same time.
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this is a mischaracterization. In my decades of writing software I have seen it replace some job descriptions but typically (and especially for skilled labor tasks) the person enjoys more capability with less effort. I've seen hardware replace people. I've seen software upend industries. But I haven't yet seen software replace people.
Translators, transcriptionists, bookkeepers, CAD draft engineers, studio musicians -- that's just off the top of my head. Hasn't eliminated those professions completely, but greatly reduced the need for them.
I looked up statistics from the Dept of Labor, those jobs still pay decently well and haven't seen a significant decline in available positions in the past decade or more.
How has software reduced the need for these roles? From where I'm looking at it, the jobs still exist but more people have access to automatic versions in software. While the software has gotten good enough for hobbyist or solo-venture needs, commercial enterprise and governments still use humans.
Translators and bookkeepers may use software to help them do their job faster or easier but it hasn't replaced them. CAD designers and studio musicians are still much better than their software counterparts. Transcriptionist is a weird one, though the office typist has been outmoded as basic computer skills (including typing) have become minimum expectations for any office job, the specialist versions of the role (especially in medical records and court stenography) are still in demand, and aren't likely to be replaced by software either.
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
because everyone else has a tough and boring job and being replaced by computer program and some device they will be free from this tedious jobs and have more time to do what they like instead. World will be a better place.
> have more time to do what they like instead With what money?
Money is only needed for paying taxes. with full automation taxes make no sense - no need to force people to work for government. Basic MMT.
Re: Why is everyone trying to replace Software Engineers?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
IDK, I've been developing software for 40 years now and have been through several of these "developer replacement" hype cycles. Every single time what ended up happening was even more developers were required. I see this as being the same, at least for the next few years. I do believe that the ultimate end point is quite different - developers will be replaced - but that's several years away and will require major ch…
I've been through this cycle as well, but I don't think this works the same way. I mean the only way it would work the same is if AI never reaches its promises, and I don't mean AGI, but never reaches the level of the thinking of a software developer. Then yes, no replacement. But do you really think AI will never get smart enough? Because the second it gets, whoever works on that level flies out the window. A therap…
What do you mean by the AI "reaching a developers level of thinking" and if "it will get smart enough"? Because it doesn't do any thinking it predicts the statistically most likely token depending on the input.