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

Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

normaltech.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 386 posts

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#261

Post by JimDabell »

zero_shift wrote: post #175
JimDabell wrote: post #65

We have been aggressively and enthusiastically automating away software engineering for the entire history of the computer industry. Every time we do so, we are able to build bigger, better things more quickly. When this happens, our work becomes more valuable and expectations rise to match. The world’s appetite for software has been insatiable so far. AI hasn’t replaced software engineers because every time we becom…

> I don’t see any evidence of this happening, but if somebody wants to make this argument, they should be clear about why this time is different It does seem to be happening - at least in mobile app stores. There's some recent analysis that demonstrates how, despite a huge updraft in the quantity of apps released, the aggregate count of reviews and downloads remains static. In other words, there are now many more app…

> when talking about economic growth of software is, money has to come from somewhere. Someone has to give it to you. So it you want to keep growing

I’m not talking about growth here. I’m merely saying that it won’t recede. My argument is that we won’t use the increased productivity to spend less money producing the same amount of software – we’ll use the increased productivity to spend the same amount of money to produce a larger amount of software.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#262

Post by jdauriemma »

The most wide-eyed AI believers I've met are tinkerers. And that tracks; the speed at which we can tinker has become so marvelous thanks to LLM-assisted coding. Tinkering is a process; people get a lot of joy out of the act of building and tweaking things. Outcomes are a secondary or tertiary considerations. AI has massively expanded our ability to act (and therefore tinker) but it can't generate meaningful impact (e.g. "engineering") by itself. Impact > activity.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#263

Post by smazga »

thewebguyd wrote: post #233
vitally3643 wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we're not too many years away from the end state of software. We already collectively produce more software than anyone really wants, and the bulk of it is anywhere between garbage and outright fraud, if not actively malicious. The end state, I think, is that everyone who needs small software to manage a todo list or synchronize files, or whatever "normal" people do, will end up with bespoke personalized soft…

> The end state, I think, is that everyone who needs small software to manage a todo list or synchronize files, or whatever "normal" people do, will end up with bespoke personalized software written by their own AI. I think you're right here. Even for myself, AI has enabled me to actually finish a plethora of personal projects that I've always wanted to built but just never bothered. These aren't things to share, nor…

Slightly off topic, but it feels cyberpunk to me in a way. In those stories, everybody always has their own bespoke technology stack:

NullVoid added the traffic cam feed to his HUD so he could make his deliveries faster"

That sort of thing. In the stories, it makes you think that everyone is just some sort of genius, but we're kind of heading there where anybody can, theoretically, create a personalized tech stack with the help of a programming agent.

I haven't put a lot of energy into it, but your first paragraph triggered that thought.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#264

Post by pzo »

nicoburns wrote: post #184
zero_shift wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don’t see any evidence of this happening, but if somebody wants to make this argument, they should be clear about why this time is different It does seem to be happening - at least in mobile app stores. There's some recent analysis that demonstrates how, despite a huge updraft in the quantity of apps released, the aggregate count of reviews and downloads remains static. In other words, there are now many more app…

> There's some recent analysis that demonstrates how, despite a huge updraft in the quantity of apps released, the aggregate count of reviews and downloads remains static. Isn't the likely explanation for this that the updraft is a huge number of sloppy AI-generated apps that nobody wants to use because they're just bad?

You also need to have time to play all those great games, watch all those great shows and read all those books.

There is a lot of software that are constrained by human eyeballs (entertainment or ads monetized)

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#265

Post by amelius »

JimDabell wrote: post #147
amelius wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> at best you can have AI doing 90% of the work as long as an expert developer is driving things. But that puts 90% of developers out of a job. And I don't see why it couldn't become 99%.

No, you are ignoring my central point by assuming that the amount of software that is being produced remains fixed. Every other time we have increased software engineer productivity, we have responded by producing more software.

Yes, it addresses your second point.

I'm not saying your entire point is invalid, just that half of it is not correct, and so things might turn out worse than expected.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#266

Post by jdauriemma »

handfuloflight wrote: post #255
jdauriemma wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but this is borderline silly. Fable has been out for less than a week and you're already making grand pronouncements about its superiority? How much first-hand evidence could you possibly have for that claim?

If he is already enjoying what he claims with pre-Fable models, then it stands to reason Fable is already above that baseline, and therefore your nitpick is silly.

That both fair and also charitable to the commenter. It's not a given that Fable is "above that baseline," all we can go by is anecdotes and Anthropic's marketing materials. Both tend to be puffed up. And if they're speaking generally about LLM-assisted coding, they could have chosen to say it that way.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#267

Post by wrenky »

jdauriemma wrote: post #252
aenis wrote: post #251

There is a large gap between people who have been using AI for coding for the hundreds or thousands of hours, vs. those who do not. People like Ed Zitron, who never managed or participated in dev projects scream from the rooftops that AI coding is only relevant for small hobby projects. Meanwhile, in my own backyard, we are happily shipping production stuff for a few months now, and newly launched IT projects get lau…

I'm sorry, but this is borderline silly. Fable has been out for less than a week and you're already making grand pronouncements about its superiority? How much first-hand evidence could you possibly have for that claim?

[dead]

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#268

Post by eigencoder »

altern8 wrote: post #202
seydor wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can be bothered to order food. The machine will figure out the rest with the help of other machines and the network

So, machines will allow ordering an app.

Yeah, I think this will really be a thing. I have been using `exe.dev` lately, and I was at an AirBnB with my family where we wanted to play a game, but it needed pencil and paper for each person, but we didn't have those. I thought it would be nice to have a little web app where you could write your input and then vote on other people's responses directly from your phone. I just spun up a VM on exe.dev, asked the AI to write the app, and then made the VM public-facing. It was a little buggy, but it worked well enough and we had a fun time.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#269

Post by LogicFailsMe »

prmph wrote: post #242
LogicFailsMe wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what you're saying is it will never be about the art itself, it's entirely about selling you on its origin story? Yeah, that sounds about right. So once it can create human-level art, it just needs to spew human-level BS script along with it for the artist to act out, got it. Reverse centaur indeed.

Wow, it's not "human-level BS" what the heck. Only someone with little appreciation of music will describe the difference between an actual performance and an AI generated one as "human-level BS". It makes a large difference in my enjoyment of the music. Have you listened to a MIDI file before? And have you listened to (or attended, preferably in person) a piano concert before? You can't compare them, AI changes noth…

And you're telling me that as long as you believe a human struggled and went through a process, the nature of the outcome is irrelevant. Hence a Monet piece is instantly slop if one believes an AI created it. That rings true. But it also explains the perception that Piss Christ was art instead of rubbish.

We just disagree as to whether an AI can write a script for a human to portray a struggle that never happened and that a human actor can make you believe it. This almost demands a performance art piece to do exactly that. The art of course being in the performance by a human until it can be replaced by an indistinguishable robot. And then the artist becomes the robot's creator I guess. Why it's creators all the down, no?

I guess we also disagree about all these lines in the sand you keep drawing when it's seemingly entirely subjective experience of a world that may or may not exist according to Plato's Cave.

And sure, I love concerts, I love live performances, but I also love to listen to a much wider range of music when I'm not in a theatre. I can understand that you might feel differently, but we are all entitled to our own opinions and tastes. And what we do in our own lives if it isn't hurting others anymore than anyone else in the west is doing with their egregious carbon footprints is none of your business.

Re: Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't

#270

Post by sofal »

prmph wrote: post #234
sofal wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your entire argument hinges on being able to tell the extent to which generative AI was used in the creation of any given piece of art, which capability you will not have. You therefore fall into the category the commenter mentioned in that your perception of the value of a piece of art can be heavily influenced by someone convincing you it was AI generated, regardless of the facts.

You don't get it. Jut recently, there was a thread discussing Persepolis, a series of autobiographical graphic novels by Marjane Satrapi (recently deceased) that depict her childhood and early adult years in Iran and Austria during and after the Islamic Revolution. People remarked it was deeply moving. Part of what makes it deeply moving is the actuality of it. This is a human story based on actual lived experiences.…

I guess since we're not talking about art anymore, and are instead talking about the veracity of information, we can safely agree. If I read a news story, I do value that information higher to the extent I am convinced it is actually true information. If I read someone's autobiography, I do value that to the extent that I trust them and that it is coming from them. A piece of fiction, however, or music, or visual art, is something that can stand on its own and be appreciated or not without having to assume this context. The context and provenance can certainly color the appreciation, but it is no longer necessary.
Post reply on HN