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

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

#311

Post by tossandthrow » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 5:53 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #254

tossandthrow wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a few developers will likely loose their jobs. In particular the ones who don't have mental capacity to work with models - the ones who are forever junior. The engineers who can manage large scale projects using agents will, on the other hand, probably get a hefty salary bump.

I've worked in many places on many teams and never met anyone that essentially does nothing besides write code... I question the obsession engineers have with their "code writing" being replaced by a machine. Do you really think that's the value you bring to the table? Non-engineers don't want to sit down and think about anything, they don't want to sit down and test that thinks actually work, they don't want to thin…

You are on point: The developers of the future need to hold much more of the domain that is being developed for. It is not a job to write JSX and tailwind classes anymore, so you need to move up in abstraction - and complexity.

Not all can do that.

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

#312

Post by tossandthrow » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 5:56 PM UTC

allajfjwbwkwja wrote: post #306

tossandthrow wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quite a few developers will likely loose their jobs. In particular the ones who don't have mental capacity to work with models - the ones who are forever junior. The engineers who can manage large scale projects using agents will, on the other hand, probably get a hefty salary bump.

> the ones who don't have mental capacity to work with models Those people don't exist.

Sure they do - there are a lot of people who thrive working with concrete technologies and solve relatively straight forward issues (implement this component - style work).

These people will see a brutal job market that is forcing them to take more responsibility and work at a higher level of abstraction.

This is nothing new - A bunch of people simply don't thrive well as knowledge workers. The bar for being a knowledge worker is going to go up - by a lot.

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

#313

Post by ChrisLTD » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:01 PM UTC

christkv wrote: post #3

I have found that the attention moves to thinking about the things I want done and planning, reading and iterating over the specs and other artefacts that will be part of running the agents. I still need to understand the code and iterate over it to get to a usable and maintainable point. I find the problem is we are reaching the top of the slop curve. I will subside because it's impossible to actually do anything us…

This 100%. Maybe I have a prompting skill issue, but without my guidance Opus (and now Fable) writes some gnarly stuff with tons of small bugs, and weird design decisions.

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

#314

Post by aurareturn » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:12 PM UTC

vanuatu wrote: post #245

aurareturn wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because companies can hire one great Dev for $300k instead of 5 mediocre ones for $150k each and get better results.

That supports my point right? Top devs make more than before

Yes. I agreed with your point.

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

#315

Post by xnx » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:19 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 agree with this more than the parent, but think about apps is probably too last generation. The rich don't use apps. They have assistants to do things and tell them what they need to know when they need to know it. AI is more likely to be like that type of assistant.

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

#316

Post by aenis » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:20 PM UTC

tripleee wrote: post #256

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…

You've never actually read anything Ed Zitron wrote, have you?

No, and I generally agree with most of his thesis - but the stuff he says about AI coding is the weakest part of his spiel.

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

#317

Post by aenis » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:23 PM UTC

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?

Fable caught us in the middle of a crisis where we had to replace a supplier with a quickly-put-together home made solution. We have been working with it non stop since it launched. And thanks to a lot of baseline experience with previous models, our small band of relatively old hands decided we are badly in love with it.

Now, remind yourself when was the last time you had to work with a developer who went to CS because it pays well, and has zero enthusiasm for what they are building, and are just phoning it in, with minimum effort and low skills. AI models are coming for those people first. And those people are in the fricking millions. Strip IT teams to people with passion either for product or for tech, give them such tools, and watch. Compare this with a normal IT shop with a bunch of great people, a metric ton of average people, a few toxic imbecilles, and the necessary HR/management bureaucracy to keep that bunch on a leash.

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

#318

Post by aenis » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:28 PM UTC

jdauriemma wrote: post #266

handfuloflight wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You sometimes meet someone and hit it off immediately. A fellow engineer, hobbyist, anyone. That is my experience after working with Fable since it launched and barely sleeping. I never had more nuanced, interesting and fruitful design discussions in my life. And I've been programming across the entire stack, from transistors to enterprise architecture, and spent 40 years around computers. Love is love, it does not need to be well researched and may well be misplaced :-)

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

#319

Post by tripleee » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 6:49 PM UTC

aenis wrote: post #316

tripleee wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've never actually read anything Ed Zitron wrote, have you?

No, and I generally agree with most of his thesis - but the stuff he says about AI coding is the weakest part of his spiel.

He heavily leans on developers for his points on coding, and then spices it up.

> For example, major media outlets will gladly write that “AI can build software,” but said sentence suggests that you can just type “build me Slack 2” into Claude and have it fart out a fully-functional, production-ready piece of software, rather than a quasi-functional mound of code-slop that can do enough to trick a business idiot or lazy journalist, but little else.

Here is the latest point he made on development and that seems accurate to me? If a non-technical person hands AI an under-specified prompt you get quasi-functional slop.

Can you link the piece where he says it's only relevant for small hobby projects?

I'm not a huge fan of his or anything but your comment is just.. pulling stuff completely out of no-where.

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

#320

Post by onemoresoop » Thu, Jun 11, 2026, 7:15 PM UTC

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #300

prmph wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And I don't draw such lines in the sand. I am saying an experience that would be perceived as authentic human communication can be artificially generated until proven otherwise. Good luck with that. I really wonder if humanity will be able to process alien life when it finally encounters it. Because it's likely to have a very different origin story, nature, and outlook.

Yeah, what you're saying is true but only to the extent of simulacra AI can produce. But it's not really art if you know what I mean, it's an artefact of training on other people's art.