Live data from Hacker News

Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

seangoedecke.com

321–330 of 809 posts

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#321
post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People always say this but it’s misguided imo. Yes LLMs are not deterministic, but that’s totally irrelevant. You aren’t executing the LLMs output directly, you’re using the LLM to produce an artefact once that is then executed deterministically. A spec gets turned into code once. Editing the spec can cause the code to be updated but it’s not recreating the whole program each time, so why does determinism matter?

In my experience, I'm using LLMs as my abstraction to "junior engineer". A junior engineer isn't deterministic either. I find that if you treat the LLM output like a person's output, you're good. Or at least in my projects, it's been very successful. I don't have it generate more code than I can review, or if I give it a snippet to help me fix it, if it ends up re-writing it like an ambitious engineer would do, I tel…

The thing is you can quickly teach a Junior how to respect a specification contract, so that with very minimal oversight, you get the wanted implementation. And after a few years (or months), the communication overhead get shorter. What would have been multiple rounds of meetings and review sessions are a short email and one or two demos.

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#322

> AI-users thus become less effective engineers over time, as their technical skills atrophy Based on my experience, I think this will prove more true than not in the long run, unfortunately. Professionally, I see people largely falling into two camps: those that augment their reasoning with AI, and those that replace their reasoning with AI. I’m not too worried about the former, it’s the latter for whom I’m worried.…

> My mom is a (US public school) high school teacher, and she vents to me about the number of students who just take “Google AI overview” as an absolute source of truth.

I notice many of the adults in my life are doing this now as well.

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can do those things they can effectively replace any white collar job. That’s about 45% of the workforce. Societies tend to collapse around 25-30% unemployment. Imagine 45% of higher than average paying jobs gone. If that happens we’ll either figure out a new economic system, or society will collapse. Also saying robots are walking just fine is misleading for any definition of just fine that is anywhere near…

Look at how the billionaires are talking about AI: Their clear, unambiguous goal is basically to replace all white collar "knowledge" jobs. And there's currently nothing regulatory that's stopping them--they just need to wait for the state of the art to improve. Once AI is "good enough" if it ever is, they won't even think twice about 45% unemployment. What are we unemployed workers going to do about it? There's no e…

I get that it is popular to hate billionaires these days, but realistically, they did not get to be billionaires by being stupid. It runs directly counter to their own interests to induce anything like 45% unemployment. They will get poorer, the world they live in right along with the rest of us will get noticeably shittier, etc.

More likely they figure out what to do with a bunch of idle talent. Or the coming generation of trillionaires will.

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#324
We're forgetting one thing: we (mere engineers) have control over nothing. The vast majority of us are at the mercy of executives and investors. Before AI we had some sort of grip because our skills weren't so much a commodity, and yeah, dealing with code and systems architecture and data and distributed systems wasn't that easy. Now AI is a tool not for us but for the higher-ups, they can finally commoditize software engineering and need only a small fraction of us. I see engineers around here fighting and discussing who'll be left behind (the 80%) and who'll remain because they're "more than mere coders" (the 20%)... what we don't discuss here is that we're all now at the mercy of Anthropic et al, and that's bad. The irony is that the vast majority of us use Anthropic, so we are just loading the guns for them to use them. It's sad, but we call it progress. Nuts

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#325
post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They build tractors, or sell tractors, or work in agricultural research and development...

I highly doubt that a significant portion of farm labor became salesman or researchers. Builders? I could see that but robots already replaced a portion of those too.

less jobs creation is a almost certain for tech, but some people with high IQ get wayy more things done, they already do. This will spread to robots and other areas because robots are not automous yet, maybe will take decade(s). but meanwhile few operators will lead them in a more productive way? That's my bet. It's a clear, logical process with iterations. A lot of things are getting faster with AI, except energy production in some places in the world!

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#326
post #67

Multiple times per week I have the same conversation. It goes something like this: - AI will make developers irrelevant - Why? - Because LLMs can write code - Do you know what I do for a living? - Yes, write code? - Yes, about 2-5% of the time. Less now. - But you said you are a developer? - I did - So what do you do 95-98% of the time? - I understand things and then apply my ability to formulate solutions - But I ca…

Something missed in that computer science was a highly theory driven discipline where people were taught how to think critically about solving complex problems. Industry complained they weren’t teaching enough programming skills, so they dumbed down the thinking part and emphasized the vocational part. Now the vocational part is virtually useless, and the grounding of theory applied to complex problems is suddenly really relevant again. Schools will take time to retool their programs, teaching staff, and two generations if not three graduates will have entered into a work environment that doesn’t need what they learned.

As someone 35 years into my career I agree this is the most exciting part of my career. I love programming and I do it all the time but I do it by reading code and course correction and explaining how to think about the problems and herding cats - just like working with a team of 100 engineers. But the engineers I’m working with now by and large listen, don’t snipe me on perf reviews, aren’t hallucinating intent based on hallway conversations with someone else, etc. This team of AI engineers I have can explain to me their work, mistakes, drift, etc without ego and it’s if not always 100% correct it’s at least not maliciously so. It understands me no matter how complex the domain I reach into, in fact it understands the domain better than I do, so instead of spending a few months convincing people with little knowledge or experience that X is a good idea, I can actually discuss X and explore if it’s a good idea or not and make a better informed decision. I’ve learned more in these discussions than I’ve learned in decades of convincing overly egoistic juniors and managers to listen to me about something I’m an industry authority on.

However I see very clearly we will need very few of the team of 100 human engineers I can leave behind in my work. Some of will be there in a decade, but maybe less than 1:10. This is going to be a more brutal time than the Dotcom bust for CS grads, and I don’t think it will ever improve. Mostly because we simply won’t need the “my parents told me this makes money” people, just the passionate folks remain. But even then, we face a situation where the value of any software developed is very low because so much software is being developed. It’s going to turn into YouTube where software that is paid for is very small relative to the quantity of software developed. We already see this in the last few months with the rate of GitHub projects created. If the value of any software created is low, the compensation of the creator will be low unless they’re very rare talents.

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#327
post #262

I really wish seemingly intelligent people would stop using the abstraction analogy (like the article does). The key word is: determinism. Every level of abstraction (inc. power tools, C, etc.) added a deterministic layer you can rely on to more effectively do whatever it is that you're doing - same result, every time. LLM's use natural language to describe programming and the result is varied at the very best (hence…

I see what you're getting at, but determinism isn't the right word either. LLMs are fundamentally deterministic -- they are pure functions which output text as a function of the input text and the network parameters[1]. Depending on your views on free will, it could be effectively argued that humans are deterministic as well. The concept you're touching on is the idea that LLMs (and humans) are functions which are in…

Let's be real, if you and I both ask claude to generate a feature on the same project, what are the chances that it spits out 100% replicated code? But if we are to build the project using a Dockerfile, we will get the same binary and the same image. Products around LLMs are non deterministic unlike compilers.

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#328
post #67

Multiple times per week I have the same conversation. It goes something like this: - AI will make developers irrelevant - Why? - Because LLMs can write code - Do you know what I do for a living? - Yes, write code? - Yes, about 2-5% of the time. Less now. - But you said you are a developer? - I did - So what do you do 95-98% of the time? - I understand things and then apply my ability to formulate solutions - But I ca…

This is a bit of glib answer. Most of the time is spent coding which encompasses typing, retyping, and retyping again. It also includes banging your head against the wall while trying to get one of your rewrites to work against and under-documented API. OP's formulation makes SWE sound like a purely noble enterprise like mathematics. It's more like an oil rig worker banging on pieces of metal with large hammers to ge…

Glib is called for. The amount of information asymmetry that's still on the table as vibe coders and vibe engineers and vibe doctors emerge is staggering. Professional experience is still incredibly valuable. Most software developers might spend more than 6% of their time coding but no senior developers are banging their heads for hours over typos.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/xBilK3gT5e0

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#329
post #67

Multiple times per week I have the same conversation. It goes something like this: - AI will make developers irrelevant - Why? - Because LLMs can write code - Do you know what I do for a living? - Yes, write code? - Yes, about 2-5% of the time. Less now. - But you said you are a developer? - I did - So what do you do 95-98% of the time? - I understand things and then apply my ability to formulate solutions - But I ca…

Only 5% of your time is spent writing code? That sounds like a low estimate for most software engineers I work with. May I ask if you could estimate how you spend the other 95% of the time?

The least experienced developer writes the most code. Juniors would be spending whole day in the IDE, typing, testing, typing etc. Senior developers will go to a park for a few hours, think, then come back spent an hour or less typing code that just works or write nothing at all, maybe even delete code. Instead they might update documents, ask clarifications about found edge cases or errors in planning that were not considered.

Re: Software engineering may no longer be a lifetime career

#330

I really wish seemingly intelligent people would stop using the abstraction analogy (like the article does). The key word is: determinism. Every level of abstraction (inc. power tools, C, etc.) added a deterministic layer you can rely on to more effectively do whatever it is that you're doing - same result, every time. LLM's use natural language to describe programming and the result is varied at the very best (hence…

There's something to be said about the fact that the very people who would use deterministic layers to build stuff are... non-deterministic. We, as humans, have our set of pros and cons, wins and failures. Even the most brilliant coders on earth will make mistakes from time to time. I often fail to see this getting accounted in any conversation when there is a critique towards LLMs, as if we humans are not flawed in our own ways, with a huge degree of variance across individuals. Good and bad code existed prior to LLMs. If you're hiring someone to do code, you're basically using some heuristics to trust this person will do a good job. But nothing is ever guaranteed 100% deterministically ever. Without thinking it that much, LLMs will sometimes produce better code and manage systems that some people who are earning salaries out there. Possibly sub-par developers if we were precise, but professionals in the meaning of the word (that are being paid to do work).

At the end of the day, what matters is how willing the person behind a given task is when it comes to deliver quality work, how transparent and honest they are, to understand requirements, and a pleasure to work with along other humans. AI/LLMs are just extra tools for them. As crazy as it might sound, but not so many people are willing to push boundaries and deliver great work. That is what makes the difference.

Post reply on HN