Live data from Hacker News

The recurring dream of replacing developers

caimito.net

21–30 of 535 posts

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#21

The dumb part of this is: so who prompts the AI? Well probably we'd want a person who really gets the AI, as they'll have a talent for prompting it well. Meaning: knows how to talk to computers better than other people. So a programmer then... I think it's not that people are stupid. I think there's actually a glee behind the claims AI will put devs out of work - like they feel good about the idea of hurting them, ra…

Who fixes the unmaintainable mess that the AI created in which the vibe coder prompted?

The Vibe Coder? The AI?

Take a guess who fixes it.

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#22
It's not so much about replacing developers, but rather increasing the level of abstraction developers can work at, to allow them to work on more complex problems.

The first electronic computers were programmed by manually re-wiring their circuits. Going from that to being able to encode machine instructions on punchcards did not replace developers. Nor did going from raw machine instructions to assembly code. Nor did going from hand-written assembly to compiled low-level languages like C/FORTRAN. Nor did going from low-level languages to higher-level languages like Java, C++, or Python. Nor did relying on libraries/frameworks for implementing functionality that previously had to be written from scratch each time. Each of these steps freed developers from having to worry about lower-level problems and instead focus on higher-level problems. Mel's intellect is freed from having to optimize the position of the memory drum [0] to allow him to focus on optimizing the higher-level logic/algorithms of the problem he's solving. As a result, software has become both more complex but also much more capable, and thus much more common.

(The thing that distinguishes gen-AI from all the previous examples of increasing abstraction is that those examples are deterministic and often formally verifiable mappings from higher abstraction -> lower abstraction. Gen-AI is neither.)

[0] http://catb.org/jargon/html/story-of-mel.html

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#23

> Which brings us to the question: why does this pattern repeat? The pattern repeats because the market incentivizes it. AI has been pushed as an omnipotent, all-powerful job-killer by these companies because shareholder value depends on enough people believing in it, not whether the tooling is actually capable. It's telling that folks like Jensen Huang talk about people's negativity towards AI being one of the bigge…

>The pattern repeats because the market incentivizes it.

Market is not universal gravity, it's just a storefront for social policy.

No political order, no market, no market incentives.

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#24
post #21

The dumb part of this is: so who prompts the AI? Well probably we'd want a person who really gets the AI, as they'll have a talent for prompting it well. Meaning: knows how to talk to computers better than other people. So a programmer then... I think it's not that people are stupid. I think there's actually a glee behind the claims AI will put devs out of work - like they feel good about the idea of hurting them, ra…

Who fixes the unmaintainable mess that the AI created in which the vibe coder prompted? The Vibe Coder? The AI? Take a guess who fixes it.

For now, training these things on code and logic is the first step of building a technological singularity.

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#25
post #4

The dumb part of this is: so who prompts the AI? Well probably we'd want a person who really gets the AI, as they'll have a talent for prompting it well. Meaning: knows how to talk to computers better than other people. So a programmer then... I think it's not that people are stupid. I think there's actually a glee behind the claims AI will put devs out of work - like they feel good about the idea of hurting them, ra…

Even that is the wrong question. The whole promise of the stock market, of AI is that you can "run companies" by just owning shares and knowing nothing at all. I think that is what "leaders" hope to achieve. It's a slightly more dressed get-rich-quick scheme. Invest $1000 into AI, have a $1000000 company in a month. That's the dream they're selling, at least until they have enough investment. It of course becomes "oh…

> Invest $1000 into AI, have a $1000000 company in a month. That's the dream they're selling, at least until they have enough investment.

But you need to buy my AI engineer course for that first.

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#26
post #20

Don't take it personal. All business want to reduce costs. As long as people cost money, they'll want to reduce people.

Which is why quiet quitting is the logical thing.

Managers and business owners shouldn't take it personally that I do as little as possible and minimize the amount of labor I provide for the money I receive.

Hey, it's just business.

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#27
I recently did a higher education contract for one semester in a highly coding focused course. I have a few years of teaching experience pre-LLMs so I could evaluate the impact internally, my conclusion is that academic education as we know it is basically broken forever.

If educators use AI to write/update the lectures and the assignments, students use AI to do the assignments, then AI evaluates the student's submissions, what is the point?

I'm worried about some major software engineering fields experiencing the same problem. If design and requirements are written by AI, code is mostly written by AI, and users are mostly AI agents. What is the point?

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#28

Spreadsheets replaced developers for that kind of work, while simultaneously enabling multiple magnitudes more work of that type to be performed.

I do agree, that’s like my go to thought.

Citizen developers were already there doing Excel. I have seen basically full fledged applications in Excel since I was in high school which was 25 years ago already.

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#29
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> who prompts the AI LLMs are a box where the input has to be generated by someone/something, but also the output has to be verified somehow (because, like humans, it isn't always correct). So you either need a human at "both ends", or some very clever AI filling those roles. But I think the human doing those things probably needs slightly different skills and experience than the average legacy developer.

Rules engines were designed for just such a thing. Validating input/output. You don’t need a human to prompt AI, you need a pipeline. While a single LLM won’t replace you. A well designed system of flows for software engineering using LLMs will.

Well, who designs the system of flows?

Re: The recurring dream of replacing developers

#30
post #21

The dumb part of this is: so who prompts the AI? Well probably we'd want a person who really gets the AI, as they'll have a talent for prompting it well. Meaning: knows how to talk to computers better than other people. So a programmer then... I think it's not that people are stupid. I think there's actually a glee behind the claims AI will put devs out of work - like they feel good about the idea of hurting them, ra…

Who fixes the unmaintainable mess that the AI created in which the vibe coder prompted? The Vibe Coder? The AI? Take a guess who fixes it.

The real question is, do you even need to fix it? Does it matter?

The reason those things matter in a traditional project is because a person needs to be able to read and understand the code.

If you're vibe coding, that's no longer true. So maybe it doesn't matter. Maybe the things we used to consider maintenance headaches are irrelevant.

Post reply on HN