Live data from Hacker News

AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

dmanco.dev

21–30 of 81 posts

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#21

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument by a person that works in software why they can't be replaced.

I am pretty familiar with a 500k LOC codebase. If for every feature request/bug the agent has to go through a lot of it, spend a gazillion thinking tokens for understanding what it needs to do, plan, and then execute (assuming it gets it right) given the current cost of tokens I argue I am often more cost effective.

In fact, I believe that the most cost effective way is a collab of human+agent. Ie giving the agent direction as it goes along with the plan I can cut the thinking while keeping the speed. Basically helping the agent going from a breadth first search into a guided depth first one which is much more token efficient.

Additionally, humans have long term memory and knowledge of the context around your codebase. Agents do not, and while you can fit a lot in 1M context window, once you fill that the quality goes down considerably.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#22
post #18

Indeed this will likely happen in the future, but not today. I was experimeting with SSD streaming in DwarfStar for DeepSeek v4 PRO inference in 128GB systems (and Flash inference iwth 32/64). GPT 5.5 ran the whole night, I checked what it had accomplished regardless of all the hints I provided in the specification document. After reasoning on the problem I gave him the design fixes and the tokens/sec were 4x after 1…

Your job safety doesn’t depend on the capabilities of AI but on what management thinks are the capabilities of AI

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#23
post #15

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument by a person that works in software why they can't be replaced.

I've yet to hear an argument that argues that software engineers can be replaced by AI that doesnt boil down to slop apologism, inability to detect slop or simple gaslighting. These are things I've come to expect from bots, clueless journalists, clueless juniors, clueless expert beginners and clueless members of the professional managerial class but almost never from experienced software engineers. To be fair, season…

The argument is "Software Engineer" sounds like "Programmer" to me and "Programming" is just typing lines of code, AI can do all that typing quicker than a human so there we go.

Currently leading an Integration that for the most part needs no new code written and the CEO is breathing down my neck telling me to cut my 4 week estimate down to 1 because "can't i just use AI like the other firms do?".

There's a morbid part of me that wants to give him what he wants and let claude make critical process decisions on internal processes that are very domain specific and have no online documentation, but alas I would rather not have the project go down in flames so I smile and nod.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#24
post #5

"Engineers" Of course not, all these sloppers are doing is training the models so at the eyes of management they are good enough for a replacement. The ones who stay will have 10x more work.

If they can actually deliver 10x more work: well, that's how economic progress looks like.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#25

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument by a person that works in software why they can't be replaced.

I think the missing piece here is nuance. Of course there are certain tasks that software engineers do that will be replaced. But will AI replace _everything_ a software engineer does? The most difficult bit about software engineering is to keep a mental model of _everything_ a product does with varying levels of granularity. The way I see LLMs fail at my company the most is that they are very good at the big picture, and very good at the very small picture, but have difficulty moving between those two levels. And especially when changes have occurred or accumulated over time. Most of all production systems have an extremely long tail of gotchas which are only managed by people who have been around for long enough to have some kind of deep storage access in their heads to those little tidbits of information. And I think current LLMs might be fundamentally incapable of replacing that.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#26
The article is quite general. Here's some notes on how AI is being used to do AI research at frontier labs specifically. It's not the singularity (yet?) but it's heading in that direction.

Most training is now actually inference, not directly gradient descent. Reinforcement learning requires the generation of lots of 'rollouts' that are then compared with each other via an algorithm like GRPO. Or they might be compared using a critic model - AI judging AI and causing it to self improve. Generating a rollout means inference. And there's lots of data cleaning by older models. This has been called in the past 'textbook' or 'curriculum' learning, not sure what it's called now. But AI is also used for things like data/document labelling, transcription of videos, detection of images/videos with watermarks or subtitles, elimination of content that shouldn't be in the dataset, creation of new content that should and so on.

AI has proven capable of some routine work, like brute-force optimizing GPU kernels or doing hyperparameter sweeps.

Obviously, researchers are all using coding agents too.

So that's a few ways AI is self-improving. But there are lots of other ways in which even frontier models are still beaten by human researchers. Experiments in closing the loop have failed. For instance, people have tried giving the latest models access to some GPUs and an old version of an AI codebase that was recently optimized by human researchers (a NanoChat speed run goal, I believe). Could the models match the performance of the AI researchers? Nope. They only got 10% as far as the humans did, mostly because their approach was uninspired. They wasted a lot of time and budget doing low-IQ stuff like hyperparameter tuning. The humans had many other tactics like studying the research literature and inventing new algorithms that the models didn't even attempt.

The bottleneck is therefore currently the level of insight and inspiration the models are capable of. I've also seen this in my own work. I come up with an idea I think is novel and see if I can get a frontier model to reach the same idea. It never works without questions so leading it's more or less pointless.

It's very unclear why AI struggles so much with innovation yet can invent new songs, poems etc without apparent difficulty. Obvious answers like "it's not in the training set" don't feel right to me, the issue is deeper.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#27
post #6

If you use AI to do your work, you can be replaced by someone else using AI to do your work.

I'm not sure what the take-home of this message is since you can replace "AI" with just about anything... "If you use a keyboard to do your work, you can be replaced by someone else using a keyboard to do your work." Sure? You can always be replaced by someone/something that can do your job better.

A keyboard doesn't "do" the work. In other words, the more work you outsource to AI, the lower your value-add becomes, the easier your are to replace by someone doing the same thing for cheaper.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#28

I have yet to hear a single convincing argument by a person that works in software why they can't be replaced.

I am pretty familiar with a 500k LOC codebase. If for every feature request/bug the agent has to go through a lot of it, spend a gazillion thinking tokens for understanding what it needs to do, plan, and then execute (assuming it gets it right) given the current cost of tokens I argue I am often more cost effective. In fact, I believe that the most cost effective way is a collab of human+agent. Ie giving the agent di…

This is why you can't be replaced today. I'm not sure you can rely on that remaining true for very long. And this goes for the vast majority of us.

To be clear, I'm also not saying LLMs will definitely displace a lot of us very soon. I'm just saying I wouldn't be surprised by either outcome and I don't know how anyone claims to know one way or another given the past year or so of progress.

Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI

#29
post #22
post #18

Indeed this will likely happen in the future, but not today. I was experimeting with SSD streaming in DwarfStar for DeepSeek v4 PRO inference in 128GB systems (and Flash inference iwth 32/64). GPT 5.5 ran the whole night, I checked what it had accomplished regardless of all the hints I provided in the specification document. After reasoning on the problem I gave him the design fixes and the tokens/sec were 4x after 1…

Your job safety doesn’t depend on the capabilities of AI but on what management thinks are the capabilities of AI

I don't think this makes any sense. Companies with managers that think AI capabilities are superior will be replaced if they are wrong as the companies will perform very poorly.
Post reply on HN