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

A Research Preview of Codex

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 487 posts

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#271

Post by MoonGhost »

geekraver wrote: post #233
criddell wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from? My kid recently graduated from a very good school with a degree in computer science and what she's told me about the job market is scary. It seems that, relatively speaking, there's a lot of postings for senior engineers and very little for new grads. My employer has hired…

Same, mine is about to graduate with a CS masters from a great school. Couldn't get any internships, and is now incredibly negative about ever being able to find work, which doesn't help. We're pretty much looking at minimum wage jobs doing tech support for NGOs at this point (and the current wave of funding cuts from Federal government for those kind of orgs is certainly not going to help with that).

With so many graduates looking for a job why don't they bang together and do something. If not for money then just to show off their skills, something to put in the resume.

It's not going to get any easier in next next few years, I think. Till the point when fresh grad using AI can make something valuable. After that it will be period when anybody can just ask AI to do something and it will find soft in its library or write from scratch. In long terms, 10 years may be, humanity probably will not need this many developers. There will be split like in games industry: tools/libs developers and product devs/artists/designers. With the majority in second category.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#272

Post by dalemhurley »

criddell wrote: post #112
johnjwang wrote: post #80

Some engineers on my team at Assembled and I have been a part of the alpha test of Codex, and I'll say it's been quite impressive. We’ve long used local agents like Cursor and Claude Code, so we didn’t expect too much. But Codex shines in a few areas: Parallel task execution: You can batch dozens of small edits (refactors, tests, boilerplate) and run them concurrently without context juggling. It's super nice to run…

If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from? My kid recently graduated from a very good school with a degree in computer science and what she's told me about the job market is scary. It seems that, relatively speaking, there's a lot of postings for senior engineers and very little for new grads. My employer has hired…

We have seen this in other industries and professions.

As everything is so new and different at this stage we are in a state of discovery which requires more senior skills to work out the lay of the land.

As we progress, create new procedures, processes, and practices, particularly guardrails then hiring new juniors will become the focus.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#274

Post by hintymad »

fosterfriends wrote: post #257
nadis wrote: post #127

In the preview video, I appreciated Katy Shi's comment on "I think this is a reflection of where engineering work has moved over the past where a lot of my time now is spent reviewing code rather than writing it." Preview video from Open AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhdpnbfH6NU&t=878s As I think about what "AI-native" or just the future of building software loos like, its interesting to me that - right now - d…

++ Kind of my whole thesis with Graphite. As more code gets AI-generated, the weight shifts to review, testing, and integration. Even as someone helping build AI code reviewers, we'll _need_ humans stamping forever - for many reasons, but fundamentally for accountability. A computer can never be held accountable https://constelisvoss.com/pages/a-computer-can-never-be-held...

> A computer can never be held accountable

I think the issue is not about humans being entirely replaced. Instead, the issue is that if AI replaces enough number of knowledge workers while there's no new or expanded market to absorb the workforce, the new balance of supply and demand will mean that many of us will have suppressed pay or worse, losing our jobs forever.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#275

Post by MoonGhost »

FilosofumRex wrote: post #263
criddell wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from? My kid recently graduated from a very good school with a degree in computer science and what she's told me about the job market is scary. It seems that, relatively speaking, there's a lot of postings for senior engineers and very little for new grads. My employer has hired…

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers..., where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from? This problem might be new to CS, but has happened to other engineers, notably to MechE in the 90's, ChemE in 80's, Aerospace in 70's, etc... due to rapid pace of automation and product commoditization. The senior jobs will disappear too, or offshored to a developing country: Exxon (India 152 - 78…

> The senior jobs will disappear too

Golden age of software development will be over soon? Probably, for humans. How cool is it, the most enthusiastic part will be replaced first.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#276

Post by yahoozoo »

nopinsight wrote: post #167
_bin_ wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a bit of a game theory problem. "Training senior engineers" is an expensive and thankless task: you bear essentially all the cost, and most of the total benefit accrues to others as a positive externality. Griping at companies that they should undertake to provide this positive externality isn't really a constructive solution. I think some people are betting on the fact that AI can replace junior devs in 2-5…

With Agentic RL training and sufficient data, AI operating at the level of average senior engineers should become plausible in a couple to a few years. Top-tier engineers who integrate a deep understanding of business and user needs into technical design will likely be safe until we get full-fledged AGI.

Why in a few years? What training data is missing that we can’t have senior level agents today?

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#277

Post by rowanG077 »

roflyear wrote: post #210
rowanG077 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. AI have shown to most capable in what we consider creative jobs. Music creation, voice acting, text/story writing, art creation, video creation and more.

If you mean create as in literally, sure. But not in being creative. AI can't solve novel problems yet. The person you're replying to obviously means being creative not literally creating something.

You can't say AI is creating something new but that it isn't being creative with clearly explaining why you think that's the case. AI is creating novel solution to problems humans haven't cracked in centuries. I don't see anything more creative than this.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#278

Post by rowanG077 »

KaiserPro wrote: post #248
rowanG077 wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. AI have shown to most capable in what we consider creative jobs. Music creation, voice acting, text/story writing, art creation, video creation and more.

> AI have shown to most capable in what we consider creative jobs no it creates shit thats close enough for people who are in a rush and dont care. ie, you need artwork for shit on temu, boom job done. You want to make a poster for a bake sale, boom job done. Need some free music that sounds close enough to be swifty, but not enough to get sued, great. But as an expression of creativity, most people cant get it to do…

> AI creates novel algorithms beating thousands of googlers.

Random HNer on an AI post one day later

> Its currently slightly more configurable clipart.

It's so ridiculous at this point that I can just laugh about this.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#279

Post by MoonGhost »

jchanimal wrote: post #191
dorian-graph wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This hyper-fixation on replacing engineers in writing code is hilarious, and dangerous, to me. Many people, even in tech companies, have no idea how software is built, maintained, and run. I think instead we should focus on getting rid of managers and product owners.

The real judge will be survivorship bias and as a betting man, I might think product owners are the ones with the entrepreneurial spirit to make it to the other side.

I've worked for a company which turned from startup to this. Product owners had no clue what they own. And no brain capacity to suggest something useful. They were just taken from the street at best, most likely had relatives' helping hands. In a couple of years company probably tripled manages headcount. It didn't help.

Re: A Research Preview of Codex

#280

Post by mupuff1234 »

alfalfasprout wrote: post #249
Workaccount2 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What am I missing? That you are trying to use LLMs to create giant sprawling codebase feature packed software packages that define the modern software landscape. What's being missed is that any one user might only utilize 5% of the code base on any given day. Software is written to accommodate every need every user could have in one package. Then the users just use the small slice that accommodates their specific ne…

> I have now created 5 hyper narrow programs that are used daily by my company to do work. I am not a programmer and my company is not a tech company located in a tech bubble. We are a tiny company that does old school manufacturing. OK, great. > That you are trying to use LLMs to create giant sprawling codebase feature packed software packages that define the modern software landscape. What's being missed is that an…

But how much of the software industry is truly solving inherently complex problems?

At a very conservative guess I'd say no more than 10% (and my actual guess would be <1%)

Post reply on HN