61–70 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your boss isn't shortly going to say the same about you? Fable is better than you at engineering.
I basically only use Fable, and no it isn’t. Coding isn’t engineering.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You misunderstood my reply. I'm talking about culture, not engineering or coding. I'm just grateful I don't work with people that say "good riddance" to blanket foreign talent bans, and "catch up or get left behind" to fellow engineers. That doesn't sound like a nice place to work? Is all I'm saying.
I don't think this is related to culture, it's just the internet nowadays. You need hot takes for engagement. That user probably runs with that mindset always on
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is this just an ad for the product? How is this connected specifically to junior engineers? Is it implying that they cannot debug code without this kind of tool while more experienced people can?
There is no product! Yesterday claude code built a console that steps through algorithms: one shot. There was a bug with a value being incorrect. I thought this would be a great way to automated visualizing and stepping through code during a PR review. I'm sitting in a room with a computer by myself where I was thinking yesterday about a way that AI can add value to junior engineers. I see a post and discussion about…
If anything will be missing from juniors it will be the ability to run code in their heads if they've only written code via AI.
> This summer, we assigned the problem to an intern (that’s less tenure than a junior engineer). The intern led the development of this feature. They talked to the product manager to understand the problem and requirements. They wrote the design document on how to approach it, aligned with the team, and built it. Of course they did that with the help of AI, and the team they were working with. So, interns can still p…
Thanks. How do you think that lowers the value of an intern, can you explain it? You're right that pre-AI that feature would not have been given to an intern (because they wouldn't be able to own it). So pre-AI, customers had a problem, we paid the intern, but could not solve the problem. Post-AI, the same problem exist, we pay the same intern. The customer problem is solved.
The article shows that the market value of the intern is lower: Work was not prioritized and given to a higher-cost junior engineer.
> … pre-AI that feature would not have been given to an intern (because they wouldn't be able to own it)…
Meaning, a more-skilled, higher-cost employee would have to do some or all of the work.
Edit: Another meaning of “worth” is a “intrinsic value”. Humans have worth in this sense.
There is still room for juniors… in fall of 2026. Will there be in fall of 2030? If your thesis rests on LLMs and AI systems not dramatically improving over where they are today, is it worth anything?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I basically only use Fable, and no it isn’t. Coding isn’t engineering.
Yes it is. It'll write a better doc at any level for any task you may do. If you're not able to see that, you just don't know how to give the context right.
Technical writing is a skill just like any other form of writing and if you’re bad at it that’s on you.
People despise AI slop novels and they also despise AI slop technical documents.
Every single time I see an article like this come out on hacker news I have the same reaction “sure, this year”. There is still room for juniors… in fall of 2026. Will there be in fall of 2030? If your thesis rests on LLMs and AI systems not dramatically improving over where they are today, is it worth anything?
Now, you could argue that those were days when people moved jobs a lot less, so a junior was an investment for the company, even if they weren't worth their salary yet. And that's true to at least some degree. Still, that means that what changed isn't the value of juniors, but companies' willingness to invest in the future.
I trust junior + claude significantly less than I trusted pre-AI juniors. I do not think it will age well to put so much pressure on juniors to make contributions early and with mostly automated mentorship before they really understand what they are doing and why.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
LLMs are not even remotely comparable to compilers. This attempt at analogy is neither humorous nor insightful.
And almost every time in history this conflict has arisen, the stubborn people who want to stick to the "everybody should stay at the level of abstraction that I want to stay at!" have been proven wrong.
So if you don't see the comparison, you lack imagination. It's the same comparison Torvald Linus made, and even though all the rabid anti-AI people try to deny that it's a valid comparison by willfully misunderstanding the comparison, it's perfectly valid.
And I find both the article and the comment I responded to either ignorant of history, and worse than uninsightful, because they are just patently, historically, logically, and empirically wrong.
And I'm getting tired of the arrogant senior devs, that are not a fraction as useful as they think they are, whining and complaining at younger people who are creating imperfect but useful work with AI.
While the tools for AI coding are just exploding. How can you people say stuff like "They learn nothing" with a straight face is beyond me. I see people daily who use AI to solve problems and learn something in the process.
I am having such a blast over the last couple of years seeing how AI development just relentlessly disproves the claims from bitter old developers who don't want to be forced to do anything useful. And when the transition is complete, the gatekeepers will be gone, and we will be left with people trying to solve real problems.
Every single time I see an article like this come out on hacker news I have the same reaction “sure, this year”. There is still room for juniors… in fall of 2026. Will there be in fall of 2030? If your thesis rests on LLMs and AI systems not dramatically improving over where they are today, is it worth anything?
I'll take the other side of that. Was there room for juniors in 2020? In 1950? What was the value of a junior in a world where programming was done in assembly? How much reliable work - how much value - could you get from them? Probably less than their salary. Now, you could argue that those were days when people moved jobs a lot less, so a junior was an investment for the company, even if they weren't worth their sa…
This same work that ai agents already do better. Now only the top juniors are really still worth it, the ones with more nebulous ownership, communication, synthesis, drive skills. And even these I think are on their way to being consumed by ai, unless the curve flattens (totally possible too). I think my only point is that the world is moving so fast that so many “optimistic about the field” posts I see basically assume we’ve reached the end of ai agent and system capabilities. If we have then great. But I find it a really unlikely bet.