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

Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

dailygalaxy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#41

Post by moe091 »

falcor84 wrote: post #27
bob1029 wrote: post #22

The hard part is the customer, not the technology. Unless you are working on something very unusual, it should be straightforward to implement anything given perfect requirements. Much (most?) of my time as a software engineer has been spent poking absurd holes in customer stories such that they are compelled to provide the actual requirements. This edge case probing is what LLMs are infamously bad at. They are too e…

> The constant here is "agency". LLMs inherently lack it. So, it has to come from somewhere. I don't understand your use of "inherently" here. Even if you define LLMs as not having agency, I don't see any inherent limitation against tacking agency on top of them. As you alluded to even just a basic loop of `if (!goalAchieved()) {promptWithToolCalling()}` is arguably agency, no? You actually suggested connecting the L…

I agree with the fact that LLM's inherently lack agency and I think it's a pretty subtle distinction but it's an extremely consequential one. AI cannot self-initiate anything, they are only able to produce an output as a response to input. The impetus for their action is always an idea that came from a humans mind, no matter how indirect that is. That much is inarguable imo, the possible point of contention is whether the same can be said about humans, and that's a very philosophical question but I am very convinced it's not the case(I won't get into my own philosophical beliefs here).

Despite the fact that the distinction is very philosophical, I think the implications are very practical. Without it's own initiating energy everything an AI produces will be a response to an input, and it's response will be constrained by the bounds implied by that input. The specific type of dialectic between the programmer and the person giving requirements, which leads to creating the ACTUAL requirements, is impossible to happen with an AI, because a dialectic requires two opposed agents/forces while an AI is incapable of being an opposing force because it is only a derivative or product of whatever force is providing it's input; basically, it is constrained inside a box defined by the input it is given, and precisely what is needed for true synthesis(new ideas/thoughts, as opposed to an analytic breaking down of the already proposed ideas) is a whole separate box to interact with the one defined by the input.

My explanation is extremely abstract and will probably only make sense to someone who almost agrees with me already, but that's the best I could do. I'm sure there is a more down-to-earth way to explain this but I guess my understanding isn't good enough to find it yet. In my defense I do think this particular issue of agency in AI is one of the most subtle and philosophical problems in the world right now that actual has practical implications.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#44

Post by heisgone »

DandyDev wrote: post #20

I don't understand why so many people subscribe to this "prediction". It seems unsubstantiated hyperbole to me. There are a few reasons why I don't believe AI will replace programmers anytime soon: 1. The job of a developer/engineer entails so much more than writing code. Figuring out what the business wants, turning that into a good (system) design, etc. takes up more time than the actual coding itself. Unless of co…

I don't expect less demand for people mastering technology, considering AI will only increase the amount of it. What we should expect is that the balance between the number of people required to create a new product compared the the amount of people to maintain it will change dramatically. Sucessful startup are going to be composed of smaller teams. On the other end, legacy code is going to require army of people to deal with.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#45

Post by fullshark »

rrgok wrote: post #23

What should I focus on from now on? If I want to change career path, what will pay me as good as a Software Engineer given that I’m 34 years old? Let’s I can take a break of 4 years to take another degree, what would be the wisest choice? I’m at lost honestly. If not 2025, it would 2030 or 2040. I fucking love software engineering.

Just keep getting better, the risk is there's going to be many more software engineers, using AI tools, which is going to lower wages more so than AI will make all software engineers obsolete.

This nonsense is about recalibrating the SWE labor market and garnering hype for tech. The primary product the technology industry creates is company equities, and their primary customer is anxious CEOs/hedge/pension funds.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#46

Post by pipeline_peak »

StefanBatory wrote: post #30
pipeline_peak wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t know this was a forum where engineers cry about the future moving past them instead of learning to adapt and evolve.

Nobody likes to lose their jobs, especially when it seems that it is the entire industry that will crash.

If a machine can replace your job, then your job no longer has impact or meaning. Doesn’t matter if you work in a call center or as an attorney.

What’s the point in doing something a machine can replace?

I know it’s harsh, but that type of thinking is what’ll help you, not this thread of nervous wallowing.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#47

Post by DandyDev »

florbnit wrote: post #40
DandyDev wrote: post #20

I don't understand why so many people subscribe to this "prediction". It seems unsubstantiated hyperbole to me. There are a few reasons why I don't believe AI will replace programmers anytime soon: 1. The job of a developer/engineer entails so much more than writing code. Figuring out what the business wants, turning that into a good (system) design, etc. takes up more time than the actual coding itself. Unless of co…

> but I have not seen many companies that still hire programmers in the most narrow sense, that only focus on writing code. So you yourself have already seen the demise of the programmer so why are you arguing against it? Software development isn’t going away. But just like we no longer have tweeners in animation, we’ll soon no longer have programmers in software development. Then soon there after we won’t have “fron…

I'm arguing against it with the other two arguments you didn't address.

Yes, AI will change the role of software engineers - and it's my personal belief that in the next couple of years this change will be smaller than many people think. But no, AI will not replace engineers like Mark Zuckerberg thinks.

Why not? Because AI makes too many mistakes and AI is not going to support and maintain your code.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#48

Post by archagon »

niemandhier wrote: post #19

The solution to every problem in programming is another rlayerbof abstraction. For me programming was always about expressing my intend. I don’t think about the instructions the compiler generates. I also rarely think about the expanded form of a template expression. If ai just acts as an it remediate between me and the compiler by adding jet-another- abstraction between me and the generated instruction, why should I…

An AI is not a layer of abstraction. It’s not deterministic, it’s frequently wrong, and its scope cannot be clearly defined.

Re: Mark Zuckerberg Announces the "Beginning of the End" for Programmers

#49

Post by bob1029 »

moe091 wrote: post #41
falcor84 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The constant here is "agency". LLMs inherently lack it. So, it has to come from somewhere. I don't understand your use of "inherently" here. Even if you define LLMs as not having agency, I don't see any inherent limitation against tacking agency on top of them. As you alluded to even just a basic loop of `if (!goalAchieved()) {promptWithToolCalling()}` is arguably agency, no? You actually suggested connecting the L…

I agree with the fact that LLM's inherently lack agency and I think it's a pretty subtle distinction but it's an extremely consequential one. AI cannot self-initiate anything, they are only able to produce an output as a response to input. The impetus for their action is always an idea that came from a humans mind, no matter how indirect that is. That much is inarguable imo, the possible point of contention is whethe…

I really appreciate the thoughtful commentary.

I agree with most of this. The part I question is if both sides of the requirements exploring process need to have agency, or if it is sufficient to have just one human participant (ideally the customer/user).

My thinking being that the adversarial or opposing agency could by provided by way of strict business rules written with human intent. So, when the customer makes a request to the model, a tool could get called that raises an exception also designed by a human. But, physically only one person is involved in that transaction.

Post reply on HN