Why AI hasn't replaced software engineers, and won't • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by vanuatu » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:23 PM UTC

packetlost wrote: post #231

vanuatu wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that kind of implies theres a ton of room for progress right? imagine if we got new shit that worked better

That violates the worse is better principle which has held true since the inception of software. Switching costs are real. It's not that hard to make an improvement, but it's very hard to make an improvement that justifies the cost in both money and time.

i think my point stands

clearly we were able to keep making improvements! the ceiling is nowhere near reached yet

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

#272

Post by YtMtBt » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:24 PM UTC

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…

[dead]

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

#273

Post by JohnMakin » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

The reasoning for AI driving layoffs never really made sense to me. My company is hiring more than ever before - the rationale being two main things - one, strong hiring market == cheaper, stronger hires, two - we are seeing efficiency gains per employee that appears at this point multiplicative, if we believe our output is valuable, hiring more to get more output (e.g., growth) is the common sense move.

I don't know how many other companies are doing this, but at least where I am, I have seen the total opposite behavior. They are very pleased with the results of AI and eager to hire.

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

#274

Post by prmph » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:25 PM UTC

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #269

prmph wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure what you are claiming here:

That authentically human communication and experiences can be artificially generated? But that is a contradiction in terms.

The outcome is not independent of the process. It will always show through.

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

#275

Post by zingar » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

vitally3643 wrote: post #92

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 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…

I thought we were very close until recently but I’ve just seen a long string of very promising openings from myself and others turn into “yeh dunno, it doesn’t work, I gave up”.

The effort to start is way down and drives new demand for software (at least in my own portfolio of side projects) but the effort to keep going is still above this threshold.

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

#276

Post by LogicFailsMe » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:26 PM UTC

borski wrote: post #238

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.

You misunderstand art. If art were solely about the outcome, we’d all be staring at photographs instead, as no art will ever have as high fidelity. Art is about the journey of the artist; the meaning with which that art is impregnated is the point. What you cynically refer to as “human-level BS,” others refer to as “the human condition” because we can relate to other humans, and empathy is a thing. It’s okay not to l…

I'm doing no such thing. By invalidating the Monet piece if it is described as AI-generated, art becomes entirely about the creation story. So that moves the bar to telling a convincing story. And LLMs can absolutely do that at the level of those museum placards next to each painting. So if you add an actor to pose as the artist, the art is the performance now.

What makes you think I don't like art? Spent 3 hours at an art museum event last weekend staring in details at paintings whilst rich drunk fools kept taking selfies next to them.

But I no longer believe people care about empathy. The US wouldn't have elected a grifting performance artist president twice if they valued empathy. We're much more hindbrain-driven than I suspect you think we are.

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

#277

Post by YtMtBt » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

eigencoder wrote: post #268

altern8 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

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

#278

Post by _pdp_ » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:29 PM UTC

I think the math is pretty clear.

Today AI is 100% automating the software engineering market. We all know it and it is not evenly distributed with some fields being more impacted than others.

However, what is not mentioned anywhere is for long this will continue and what shape it will take. It is a trickier question.

There are two factors in my mind: cost and volume.

On the cost side, AI coding agents could become unfordable. What happens then? Back to engineering jobs? Hard to tell. It might impact seriously the bottom line of many companies while jobs remain lost forever.

On the scale side, the more code is written the more complex it becomes - that is a fact. Who is going to look after this code? More AI? That will make it more costly. Or is that most software is dead on arrival - then why build it?

So it is not clear cut. The investment is there but how to turn the investment in meaningful long-term ROI is not.

Even on the highly subsidies plans most software written today has marginal ROI. Building landing pages and features that nobody asked for is not a good execution plan and frankly I have done this mistake myself.

The last bit I would like to flag is that if software becomes almost free then why build at all? Why would companies even bother building anything at all?

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

#279

Post by prmph » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:30 PM UTC

sofal wrote: post #270

prmph wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

But I am not just taking about factual information. You still don't get it. I was just using that example to show if you take out key components of what makes something what is it, it is no longer the same thing.

I am saying the an intrinsic component of art is the human context of it. You can call AI generated "art" by another name if you want, and enjoy it for what it is, but the reasons why you might enjoy it are different from the reasons you might enjoy human art.

Why do we still enjoy art in spite of the fact that we have photography? Or foot races even though we have cars?

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

#280

Post by rspeele » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 4:31 PM UTC

wiseowise wrote: post #67

nicce wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It most certainly will replace software engineers. I would say it will most certainly replace software developers . There is a subtle difference between these terms.

“Software developers” and “software engineers” distinction has the same energy when one uses to pat oneself on a back when they call themselves “expat” instead of an “immigrant”. You write code, all the huff and puff around “architecturing”, and “alignment”, and “knowing what to build” is just vapor. I’ve never met “software developer”, outside of online forums, who did “coding” and none of the latter.

Yep. "Developer" was already an inflation over "programmer".

Sometime in the late 2000s/early 2010s people started saying, oh, a programmer means you just type in the code to implement requirements, a developer actually understands and can create the requirements to meet the business needs! Like that wasn't what people were already doing for decades and calling "programming".

edit: I guess it was offshoring that encouraged the self-marketing as a "developer" (not one of those programmers you can get anywhere for cheap) just as AI is doing the same thing with "engineer"