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

361–370 of 386 posts

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

#361

Post by ranger_danger »

pulse7 wrote: post #179
JimDabell wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So it's similar to "Andy and Bill's Law" [1]: "What Intel giveth, Microsoft taketh away". If Windows would stay the same (and not grow) it would be much faster on newer CPUs... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_and_Bill%27s_law

Interestingly, that link seems to say it was created for the opposite reason, that is, Intel was frustrated that Microsoft wasn't taking full advantage of their CPUs, not that bloat was steadily increasing.

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

#362

Post by tripleee »

scotty79 wrote: post #355
tripleee wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 l…

> 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 How's that different from randomly selected human developer team? Other than price, time and hr. Most software project always failed for a reason.

answer it yourself: what would you do if a non-technical person came to you and asked to hire you to build "slack v2"

If your next move is to create a pile of quasi-functional slop because they under-specified it.. that's not normal

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

#363

Post by jdauriemma »

aenis wrote: post #318
jdauriemma wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 n…

I say the following with sincere concern.

AI is a cool technology but anthropomorphizing it and using the L-word to describe your relationship with it is a symptom of AI psychosis. Respectfully, I suggest that you take a break and touch grass.

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

#364

Post by jdauriemma »

aenis wrote: post #317
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?

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 beca…

I'm happy for you; clearly you've had a good experience.

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

#365

Post by saltcured »

zombot wrote: post #351
saltcured wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is an interesting analogy. If AI is really progressing as rapidly as some describe, should we expect a robotics renaissance with automated-chef appliances etc? In other words, when will we really see a transition from "yet another token generator" to something that appears to coherently observe, perceive, form intent, plan, and act in a way that is compatible with an existing, long-running human context?…

If these things happen, they will be privacy nightmares, just as our cars are becoming.

I agree, in practice.

In theory, they could be made to strictly compartmentalize their "memories" and exercise some kind of robot-client privilege. There could even be built-in, task-appropriate data-retention limits and anonymization algorithms to reduce the risk of leaks.

But instead, we should assume they will be made to remember too much and to send abusive levels of reconnaissance and other telemetry back to their parent companies. Because anything less is "leaving money on the table" and that has become the greatest sin of all... :-(

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

#367

Post by nec4b »

JimDabell wrote: post #356
nec4b wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The frontend feedback is much harder for AI. AI needs to be able to see the page with all the moving parts and sounds and have a bit of sense for the layout and taste in colors etc. I think it much harder for AI to recognize what feels good for the human user. Backend is devoid of that personal touch. By definition you are building for the machine. You have APIs, databases and infrastructure which is logical and easy…

I think you’re conflating development and design there. I’m saying that development is at risk, I’m not commenting on design. Taste in colours and things like that are design.

I'm not. I really fail to see where do you see frontend development to be easier for AI to pick up compared to backend. As I said frontend is writing code for an user interface and backend for a machine interface.

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

#368

Post by scotty79 »

tripleee wrote: post #362
scotty79 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 How's that different from randomly selected human developer team? Other than price, time and hr. Most software project always failed for a reason.

answer it yourself: what would you do if a non-technical person came to you and asked to hire you to build "slack v2" If your next move is to create a pile of quasi-functional slop because they under-specified it.. that's not normal

That's normal in sense of being a practical outcome of most software development projects.

The truth is, software development process always produced mostly garbage. Looking at only successful projects and saying "see? that's what humans do, completely unlike AI" is a bucket of survivorship bias.

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

#369

Post by JimDabell »

nec4b wrote: post #367
JimDabell wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you’re conflating development and design there. I’m saying that development is at risk, I’m not commenting on design. Taste in colours and things like that are design.

I'm not. I really fail to see where do you see frontend development to be easier for AI to pick up compared to backend. As I said frontend is writing code for an user interface and backend for a machine interface.

You think “taste in colours” is a development task not a design task‽

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

#370

Post by empath75 »

LogicFailsMe wrote: post #227
prmph wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AI is unlikely to ever create great works of art because art is not, and has never been just about technical excellence; it is fundamentally a human thing: one human communicating to another. Just even knowing that some art was AI produced is enough to not see it as great: there is no human story or experience behind it, no human context, etc. You can definitely appreciate it in the category of AI work, however. AI s…

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.

Photographs made technical skill at recreating reality with paint less relevant, while making point of view, staging, etc, more important. You can absolutely create a photograph that is art, but a camera is not an artist, the person holding it is.
Post reply on HN