61–70 of 522 posts
Thus, "Code" is a liability; Producing excess liabilities 'cheaply' is still a loss.
You only ever want to have just enough code to accomplish the task at hand.
LLMs may help you get to just enough faster, but you'll only know that you are there after doing the second 90%.
I'm very curious to see how this will affect the job market. All the recent CS grads, all the coding bootcamp graduates - where would they end up in? And then there's medium/senior engineers that would have to switch how they work to oversee the hordes of AI agents that all the hype evangelists are pushing on the industry. Not an employee market, that's for sure.
>> oversee the hordes of AI agents This is the thing I don't really get. I enjoy tinkering with AI and seeing what it comes up with to solve problems. But when I need to write working code that does anything beyond simple CRUD, it's faster for me to write the code than it is to (1) describe the problem in English with sufficient detail and working theory, then (2) check the AI's work, understand what it's written, de…
Perhaps you have to be certain type of person or work in a peculiar company where second step (review) can be ignored as long as AI says that it does. Hardcore YOLO life.
Code is cheap is the same as saying "Buying on credit is easy". Code is a liability, not an asset.
But please correct me if I'm wrong.
The second chapter is more of a classic pattern, it describes how saying "Use red/green TDD" is a shortcut for kicking the coding agent into test-first development mode which tends to get really good results: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the most interesting aspects is when LLMs are cheap and small enough so that apps can ship with a builtin one so that it can adjust code for each user based on input/usage patterns.
I've heard this referenced multiple times and I have yet to hear the value be clearly articulated. Are you saying that every user would eventually be using a different app? Wouldn't it eventually get to the point that negates the need for the app developer anyways since you would eventually be unable to offer any kind of support, or are we just talking design changing while the actual functionality stays the same? Ho…
These are valid points, taken to the extreme we will have apps that cannot be supported.
In short term, we already have SQL/reports being automated. Lovable etc is experimenting with generating user interfaces from prompts, soon we will have complete working apps from a prompt. Why not have one core that you can expand via a prompt?
I am currently studying and depending heavily on Anki, its been amazing to use Claude Code to add new functionality on the fly. Its a holy mess of inconsistent/broken UX but it so clearly gives me value over the core version. Sometimes it breaks, but CC can usually fix it within a prompt or two.
Code generation is cheap in the same way talk is cheap. Every human can string words together, but there's a world of difference between words that raise $100M and words that get you slapped in the face. The raw material was always cheap. The skill is turning it into something useful. Agentic engineering is just the latest version of that. The new skill is mastering the craft of directing cheap inputs toward valuable…
Indeed: The act of actually typing the code into an editor was never the hard or valuable part of software engineering. The value comes from being able to design applications that work well, with reasonable performance and security properties.
Code is cheap is the same as saying "Buying on credit is easy". Code is a liability, not an asset.
Automated intelligence is now cheap....
I'm very curious to see how this will affect the job market. All the recent CS grads, all the coding bootcamp graduates - where would they end up in? And then there's medium/senior engineers that would have to switch how they work to oversee the hordes of AI agents that all the hype evangelists are pushing on the industry. Not an employee market, that's for sure.
saw an article recently where every sector is seeing a reduction in IT/devs except for tech and ai companies
if your company is in a sector where eng is a cost-center and the product is not directly tied to your engineers / your company is pushing for efficiency it's an employer's market
I like the idea of we will always need Pilots. We have autopilot and i'm sure if we tried could automate take off and landing of commercial flights. But we will keep pilots on planes long after they are needed.