11–20 of 71 posts
The "AGI is right around the corner" argument is effectively corporate malpractice. No, shareholders don't want you to wait around and do nothing (other than a few layoffs here and there) while you wait for AGI.
The "AGI is right around the corner" argument is effectively corporate malpractice. No, shareholders don't want you to wait around and do nothing (other than a few layoffs here and there) while you wait for AGI.
The layoff mass hysteria that ran through the tech industry established doing less or nothing as a corporate virtue. If the market gave your company a PE ratio of 20+ and you're flush with cash, it is borderline fiduciary negligence to be slashing projects and doing layoffs. Your shareholders didn't invest in you for the capital preservation portfolio-management skills of your finance department.
Americans inexplicably re-elected a wildly incompetent conman to be president In fact, this was totally and easily explicable after the dominant political party tried to convince Americans that their current leader was not suffering from severe cognitive decline and was "sharp as a tack" (a Biden admin talking point) and that NPCs lying to Americans about Trump being "easy to beat" by Kamala and also lying to them ab…
Same as it ever was. No further explanation needed. Not a new phenomenon.
ed: "No, it must be the fault of the left." must be a reassuring thought, but let me occams razor that for you: when these people were younger, they were selfish, and as they weren't yet the status quo, they were progressive. When these people got older, they were still selfish, and as they were the status quo, they were conservatives. Simple.
Americans inexplicably re-elected a wildly incompetent conman to be president In fact, this was totally and easily explicable after the dominant political party tried to convince Americans that their current leader was not suffering from severe cognitive decline and was "sharp as a tack" (a Biden admin talking point) and that NPCs lying to Americans about Trump being "easy to beat" by Kamala and also lying to them ab…
At several times I was like « why did you do that this way? This is so contrived ». And I should have known better but of course the answer started with « … I know but Copilot did this or that… ». Of course no test to validate properly the implementation.
The sentiment expressed in the article were developers won’t even bother to validate the output of coding assistants is real. And that’s one of the biggest shame to this current hype: quality was already decreasing for the past 10 years, signs indicate this will only go downhill from here
The reality is AI will change how software is built, but it's still just a tool that requires the same type of precise thinking that software developers do. You can remove all need to understand syntax, but the need for translating vague desires from laypeople into a precise specification will remain—there's nothing on the AI horizon that will solve for this, and savvy tech leaders know this. So why are we hearing this narrative from tech leaders who should know better? Two reasons:
First is that the majority of investor gains in the US stock market have been fueled heavily by AI hype. Every public tech CEO is getting questions from analysts about what their AI strategy, and they have to tell a compelling story. There's very little space or patience for nuance here because no one really knows how it will play out, but in the meantime investors are making decisions based on what is said. It's no surprise that the majority of execs are just jumping on the bandwagon so they have a story to keep their stock price propped up.
Second, and perhaps more importantly, regardless of AI, software teams across the industry are just too big. Headcount for tech companies has ballooned over the last couple decades due to the web, smart phone revolution and ZIRP. With this type of environment the FAANGs of the world were hoarding talent just to be ready to capitalize on whatever is next. But the ugly truth is that a lot of the juice has already been squeezed, and the actual business needs don't justify that headcount over the long-term. AI is convenient cover story for RIFs that they would have done anyway, this just ties it with a nice bow for investors.
In the near future we'll probably see a lot more subject matter experts creating their own tools instead of requiring a dedicated person to translate their requirements.
AI is at best very helpful.
It’s a very very long way from making programmers obsolete.
This whole post-developer idea is a red herring fueled by investor optics. The reality is AI will change how software is built, but it's still just a tool that requires the same type of precise thinking that software developers do. You can remove all need to understand syntax, but the need for translating vague desires from laypeople into a precise specification will remain—there's nothing on the AI horizon that will…
What makes you think LLMs will never be able to do that?
Have you tried any of the various DeepResearch products? The workflow is that you make a request for a research project; and then it asks various clarifying questions to narrow down the specific question, acceptable sources, etc.; and only then does it do all the research and collate a report for you.
There used to be a job of a "Typist". Now everyone does their own typing. In the near future we'll probably see a lot more subject matter experts creating their own tools instead of requiring a dedicated person to translate their requirements.