Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

elma.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 481 posts

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#231

Post by sosborn »

cmiles74 wrote: post #216
bentt wrote: post #60

The best code I've written with an LLM has been where I architect it, I guide the LLM through the scaffolding and initial proofs of different components, and then I guide it through adding features. Along the way it makes mistakes and I guide it through fixing them. Then when it is slow, I profile and guide it through optimizations. So in the end, it's code that I know very, very well. I could have written it but it…

I can see how this workflow made the senior developer faster. At the same time, work mentoring the AI strikes me as less valuable then the same time spent mentoring a junior developer. If this ends up encouraging an ever widening gap between the skill levels of juniors and seniors, I think that would be bad for the field, overall. Getting that kind of data is difficult, right now it's just something I worry about.

It's a classic short-term gain outlook for these companies.

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#232

Post by square_usual »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #223
victorbjorklund wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% this. The AI missunderstands and make a mistake? No problem. Clarify and the AI will come back with a rewrite in 30 sec.

A rewrite with another, more subtle mistake. That you must spend energy discovering and diagnosing.

> another, more subtle mistake. That you must spend energy discovering and diagnosing

But this is literally what senior engineers do most of the time? Have juniors write code with direction and review that it isn't buggy?

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#233

Post by kaydub »

Because juniors don't know when they're being taken down a rabbit hole. So they'll let the LLM go too deep in its hallucinations.

I have a Jr that was supposed to deploy a terraform module I built. This task has been hanging out for a while so I went to check in on them. They told me the problem they're having and asked me to take a look.

Their repo is a disaster, it's very obvious claude took them down a rabbit hole just from looking. When I asked, "Hey, why is all this python in here? The module has it self contained" and they respond with "I don't know, claude did that" affirming my assumptions.

They lack the experience and they're overly reliant on the LLM tools. Not just in the design and implementation phases but also for troubleshooting. And if you're troubleshooting with something that's hallucinating and you don't know enough to know it's hallucinating you're in for a long ride.

Meanwhile the LLM tools have taken away a lot of the type of work I hated doing. I can quickly tell when the LLM is going down a rabbit hole (in most cases at least) and prevent it from continuing. It's kinda re-lit my passion for coding and building software. So that's ended up in me producing more and giving better results.

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#234

Post by kaydub »

Hendrikto wrote: post #71
bentt wrote: post #60

The best code I've written with an LLM has been where I architect it, I guide the LLM through the scaffolding and initial proofs of different components, and then I guide it through adding features. Along the way it makes mistakes and I guide it through fixing them. Then when it is slow, I profile and guide it through optimizations. So in the end, it's code that I know very, very well. I could have written it but it…

> I could have written it but it would have taken me about 3x longer when all is said and done. Really does not sound like that from your description. It sounds like coaching a noob, which is a lot of work in itself. Wasn’t there a study that said that using LLMs makes people feel more productive while they actually are not?

Everyone using that study to prove LLMs are bad hasn't actually read the study.

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#235

Post by shinycode »

methuselah_in wrote: post #93

Because there is no shortcut for things learned over a period of time through trial and error. Your brain learns and makes judgements over time through experience and, the strange thing, what I feel is that it can alter new decisions it is making right now based on older memories to do something and that is totally logical as well. Without understanding what I am writing, just copy-pasting, I guess is going to make n…

Exactly, and juniors tend to accept generated code without being able to judge the quality of it. Lazyness kicks in and boom, they don’t learn anything.

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#236

Post by bigfishrunning »

fluidcruft wrote: post #229
bigfishrunning wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A rewrite with another, more subtle mistake. That you must spend energy discovering and diagnosing.

How is that different from working with a n00b except that it only took 30sec to get to the next bug rather than a week?

The junior engineer will grow into a senior engineer

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#237

Post by AdrianB1 »

cmiles74 wrote: post #216
bentt wrote: post #60

The best code I've written with an LLM has been where I architect it, I guide the LLM through the scaffolding and initial proofs of different components, and then I guide it through adding features. Along the way it makes mistakes and I guide it through fixing them. Then when it is slow, I profile and guide it through optimizations. So in the end, it's code that I know very, very well. I could have written it but it…

I can see how this workflow made the senior developer faster. At the same time, work mentoring the AI strikes me as less valuable then the same time spent mentoring a junior developer. If this ends up encouraging an ever widening gap between the skill levels of juniors and seniors, I think that would be bad for the field, overall. Getting that kind of data is difficult, right now it's just something I worry about.

I would spend time mentoring a junior, but I don't have one so I work with AI. It was the company's decision, but when they asked me "who can continue developing and supporting system X" the answer is "the nobody that you provided". When you cut corners on growing juniors, you reap what you sow.

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#238

Post by [deleted] »

sndisjh wrote: post #217
peteforde wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am so tired of this style of "don't believe your lying eyes" conjecture. I'm a career coder and I used LLMs primarily to rapidly produce code for domains that I don't have deep experience in. Instead of spending days or weeks getting up to speed on an SDK I might need once, I have a pair programmer that doesn't check their phone or need to pick up their kids at 4:30pm. If you don't want to use LLMs, nobody is forci…

> used LLMs primarily to rapidly produce code for domains that I don't have deep experience in You’re either trusting the LLM or you still have to pay the cost of getting the experience you don’t have. So in either case you’re not going too much faster - the formers cost not being apparent until it’s much more expensive later on. Edit: assuming you don’t struggle with typing speed, basic syntax, APIs etc. These are n…

[deleted]

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#239

Post by kaydub »

athrowaway3z wrote: post #134
Hendrikto wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I could have written it but it would have taken me about 3x longer when all is said and done. Really does not sound like that from your description. It sounds like coaching a noob, which is a lot of work in itself. Wasn’t there a study that said that using LLMs makes people feel more productive while they actually are not?

> Wasn’t there a study that said that using LLMs makes people feel more productive while they actually are not? On a tangent; that study is brought up a lot. There are some issues with it, but I agree with the main takeaway to be weary of the feeling of productivity vs actual productivity. But most of the time its brought up by AI skeptics, that conveniently gloss over the fact it's about averages. Which, while organ…

Not to mention the study doesn't really show a lack of productivity and they include some key caveats in it outlining how they think productivity increases using LLMs

Re: AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

#240

Post by AdrianB1 »

square_usual wrote: post #230
cmiles74 wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see how this workflow made the senior developer faster. At the same time, work mentoring the AI strikes me as less valuable then the same time spent mentoring a junior developer. If this ends up encouraging an ever widening gap between the skill levels of juniors and seniors, I think that would be bad for the field, overall. Getting that kind of data is difficult, right now it's just something I worry about.

> work mentoring the AI strikes me as less valuable then the same time spent mentoring a junior developer But where can you just "mentor" a junior? Hiring people is not so easy, especially not ones that are worth mentoring. Not every junior will be a willing, good recipient of mentoring, and that's if you manage to get one, given budget constraints and long lead times on hiring. And at best you end up with one or two…

If a junior is not willing to learn and grow, there is no future for that person in the organization. "Forever junior" is not a valid job title. Better not hire someone that is not good enough than having to deal with the consequences, I learned from my past mistakes.
Post reply on HN