141–150 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And I suppose you pasted this from some ai summary.
The post-ChatGPT world has made me hypersensitive to the "AI smell" of bullet lists where each item ends with a fullstop. (Insert standard discussion points about whether it really even matters who wrote it, I only notice the obvious cases, humans have been spewing low quality content since the invention of language, ...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not on the hype train myself, but I'd never say never. I can certainly picture much of what devs do today become automated. Heck, we already have plain old deterministic tools that are ridiculously productive compared to common tech stacks in the industry. That said, it is the very nature of software development (or any endeavor in building complex systems) that we discover a lot of the detail problems later down…
You still have to do the hard part. Writing all the prompts. That's what we do in all those meetings that sap our time, energy, and patience. Even if we complete all that we rely on devs to identify and/or fill in gaps along the way. If you think your job is on the chopping block by way of AI then you are confused about the value you offer. I'm often disgusted that even senior devs are confused about what their job i…
The industry maturing, easy VC/stock market money drying up, the economy not doing so great, those are the dangers I'd worry about.
But who can predict the future? I sure can't.
I guess I'd be interested to see how this performs against the same benchmark Devin was using. It's hard to deny that this isn't impressive. But I think there's two interesting parts to it. Claude 3 Opus already scored around 85-86% on these benchmarks, without an "AutoDev" style agentic approach. And all the same problems with HumanEval remain, the limitations in terms of what style of problems are chosen, and real…
That takes a bit of parsing. From context (and if you meant precisely what you wrote), I _think_ you're saying it's not impressive.
If LLM/Agents contribute to software development, how does the role of software engineers evolve? SE should focus on : - System design - Integrations - Project management etc or the job will disappear in 10 years ?
Prompt Engineering! I'm kidding. Software engineering roles of the "glue things together" kind will evolve into a 'technical product' role, defining how systems work, especially at the edges where systems interact. Architects and staff engineers already do this. Lower down the food chain engineers who actually invent new things will do the same, only quicker if they have an AI tool assisting with the grunt work of te…
I guess I'd be interested to see how this performs against the same benchmark Devin was using. It's hard to deny that this isn't impressive. But I think there's two interesting parts to it. Claude 3 Opus already scored around 85-86% on these benchmarks, without an "AutoDev" style agentic approach. And all the same problems with HumanEval remain, the limitations in terms of what style of problems are chosen, and real…
Thing is though, they neglected to compare this against a control, and the examples they tested this on were examples that GPT had no problem building. No idea if this actually improved performance in LLMs.
I think comments like these are worthwhile because, frankly, I can’t trust AI researchers to run good experiments or evaluate their models properly for a variety of reasons. I mean, most scientific papers in general are hard to replicate and have flaws concerning sample size and what have you (Related, I still remember my disillusion in finding out that the average Hacker News commenter was an idiot incapable of critical thinking when the LK-99 hype reached a fever pitch). In any other context we would be deeply suspicious of the results if they were sponsored by a corporate party, yet in the context of AI we don’t seem to care that most AI researchers work for Microsoft.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ambiguity in requirements is where the majority of bugs come from now. So I don't think AI would improve things.
Assuming a (hypothetical, doubtful) AI as good as a human programmer, I think the advantage becomes speed. Think of it like a REPL that you program in English. Patching ambiguities with "Oh, I didn't mean X, I meant Y" becomes the work of minutes, not hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> Most dev jobs are mostly repetitive plumbing Those jobs should go away. Basically, the elimination of anything boring is ultimately a net good for humanity.
Neat idea. That solves everything. Oh, one quick thing. I'm sure it's nothing, but I'm a bit slow. How do you get new experts if no one gets to do the junior work that gives them the experience to become an expert?
This technology is no different.
Maybe ignorant, but if AI can get to a point of fully automating SWEs, hardly any white-collar knowledge based job is safe.
Similarly I think SREs will also continue to be a pretty safe bet.
People will still need to play facilitator, debugger, glue, maintainer, upgrader etc
Might look different, might need more AI, but I just can't see a world where people aren't engineering software.
I'm currently looking for a new job in development... should I be looking for an exit instead?
I think you either need to specialize in something quite niche, or work on really hard problems where the main hurdle is problem solving and not coding CRUD apps, or work on legacy systems where the hurdle is understanding twenty years of garbage code, or get closer to product management so you can direct a much more automated programming process
Always a gamble.
I would advise instead, get very good at learning, understanding complex systems deeply, adapting, and moving quickly.
We're entering the fasting changing landscape of engineering we've ever seen.
Be someone that can quickly get up to speed and excel regardless of the task.