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

Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

jrswab.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#41

Post by js8 »

I kind of agree with the article. AI will make SW engineers (or engineers in general) lot more productive, but you still need someone who translates the fuzzy and potentially conflicting specs into something that can be built. That involves a lot of little decisions on how to resolve contradictions, and that's why formal programming language is used. AI can do it to an extent, but likely it won't get you what you want with less communication.

It's a misunderstanding that AI makes SW engineers less valuable, when the code making is cheaper. This assumes there is some fixed amount of code that the society needs to produce. I think the companies will face a different reality - the code they own ("intellectual property") will become less valuable, but the programmers (who are now effectively promoted to kind of product managers) will become more valuable, as they can now do more (and cause more damage, too).

The innovations of the past, such as compilers and open source, which made programmers more productive, didn't make them obsolete.

That being said, it will take companies (and their owners) some time to accept the new reality - programmers have more power now and it's harder to gatekeep what they work on. So the management of these companies will try to twist it, which will ultimately be counterproductive. The programmers should recognize it and look into some form of social organization - be it unions, professional organization or worker cooperatives. (Distinction of labor vs capital is not a natural law, just like the distinction between lords and peasants isn't god-given.)

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#42

Post by paxys »

ASalazarMX wrote: post #36
paxys wrote: post #29

This reads like a fanfic. "My manager wants to get rid of me because I'm too good with computers and he is jealous." No, he wants to get rid of you because you are an operating expense for the company. If they can achieve the same outcome without paying your salary then why wouldn’t they fire you?

So far they have prevailed despite RADs, 4GLs, no-code solutions, etc. Software engineers have ended up using these new tools to still develop. You can already see developers embracing LLMs to create heaps of trash for fun while they learn to integrate them in their job. It would take a huge leap forward, if not actual AGI, to fully replace Software Developers. If that's the case, they could replace any human job at…

Software engineering as a profession isn’t going anywhere, but what makes AI different from previous fads is that engineers who fail to adapt and update their skills will definitely be replaced.

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#43

Post by abnercoimbre »

Jtsummers wrote: post #40
moralestapia wrote: post #39

??? Flagged why? I think it was a pretty good article. I don't how this could offend anyone.

I suspect it got flagged by the people who think it was written by an LLM, and the people who thought the "jealousy" argument was particularly weak. It's also a lot of words when the answer is obvious (as pointed out by many commenters here): Money. Since the development of computers, companies have wanted to save money and that's meant a push to find a magic bullet that can replace many, if not most or all, programm…

Biased as the submitter here, but even if "jealousy" may be a weak argument (as presented) some of us were discussing scenarios where jealous statements were too obvious to let slide. It's a real human emotion and adds an unexplored angle.

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#44

Post by keeda »

deepsun wrote: post #24
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #7

Software engineers are laborers. If you're a capital owner, a laborer is something that weights down your returns. It's not rocket science.

Counterpoint -- capital owners see SWEs as their asset, and owners do not like to see their assets go away (with intellectual property in their heads). So they nurture and give a lot of freedom to their SWEs. I've seen both ways, and don't share the "capital owners BAD" sentiment. The first thing to join a company is to see whether they assign Eng department to Costs or to Assets mentally.

If the intellectual property can be captured inside an LLM that is cheaper, tireless, compliant, not demanding, does not require HR, and will not jump to a competitor for higher pay, why would capital owners look at SWEs as assets?

You could say LLMs can't "keep intellectual property in their heads", but even today they don't need to. They just need to capture everything in a bunch of artifacts -- code, docs, spreadsheets, etc. -- which is already possible. The same things we do but to a limited extent because we're human. LLMs, being tireless, can do so with much more meticulous detail. Whatever an LLM cannot do can be done by a fraction of the workforce.

Yes, enlightened companies used to value their engineers, but the calculus has shifted. Look around -- layoffs, RTO mandates, AI mandates, offshoring, under-leveling, record levels of burnout -- even before AI has been widely adopted! The tech industry overall is been telling us what their stance is with their actions louder than any amount of perks or "we are all family" ever could.

It's not "because capital owners BAD", it's just "because Capitalism."

Our primary edge at this point is creativity and innovation that creates new intellectual property. I think that will be safe for a while, but that requires a pretty high level of skill and experience, which excludes a majority of the workforce. This is where I suspect a lot of pain will be felt.

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#46

Post by ekjhgkejhgk »

deepsun wrote: post #24
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #7

Software engineers are laborers. If you're a capital owner, a laborer is something that weights down your returns. It's not rocket science.

Counterpoint -- capital owners see SWEs as their asset, and owners do not like to see their assets go away (with intellectual property in their heads). So they nurture and give a lot of freedom to their SWEs. I've seen both ways, and don't share the "capital owners BAD" sentiment. The first thing to join a company is to see whether they assign Eng department to Costs or to Assets mentally.

> The first thing to join a company is to see whether they assign Eng department to Costs or to Assets mentally.

Workers are costs. Always have been. If you don't own them, they're not assets.

"SWEs are assets" is HR propaganda so you think you're valued.

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#47

Post by soco »

SoftTalker wrote: post #18
ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #7

Software engineers are laborers. If you're a capital owner, a laborer is something that weights down your returns. It's not rocket science.

Yes this has been the motivation for decades. There has always been a language, methodology, or system being hyped that promised to eliminate the need for trained programmers. Why? Because they are expensive. Digital computers were cheaper than the legions of human "calculators" that they replaced, but once those savings were realized, the next step was to attack the smaller number but still expensive per head staff…

I had the feeling that the promise was higher productivity and better quality. Like, we wanted to implement more and faster. Maybe now we have run out of more and faster things to implement, so the optimization is on the costs?

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#48

Post by soco »

armchairhacker wrote: post #13
Snoozle wrote: post #9

Why does this entire article read like chatgpt? Kind of ironic considering the content. Big llm smells: 'Not "AI helps you autocomplete a function." Not "AI explains a stack trace." I mean the full-on narrative:' 'Sure, it's a weird language. It looks archaic. Sometimes it's hostile. Sometimes it's beautiful. But still—if you know what you're doing—you can sit down with a keyboard and turn words into: a product a wor…

Why do "they" (bloggers) want to get rid of their own writing? What are the good reasons to write a blog, minus those that involve you actually writing it?

There's money to be made if you can build an audience. There are many ifs on the way of course, but some people do earn handsomely from publishing. They're called content creators or influencers.

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#49

Post by deepsun »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #46
deepsun wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Counterpoint -- capital owners see SWEs as their asset, and owners do not like to see their assets go away (with intellectual property in their heads). So they nurture and give a lot of freedom to their SWEs. I've seen both ways, and don't share the "capital owners BAD" sentiment. The first thing to join a company is to see whether they assign Eng department to Costs or to Assets mentally.

> The first thing to join a company is to see whether they assign Eng department to Costs or to Assets mentally. Workers are costs. Always have been. If you don't own them, they're not assets. "SWEs are assets" is HR propaganda so you think you're valued.

Hard disagree, I've seen how it can be otherwise. Try looking at smaller companies, they can be much better OR much worse than large companies, more variation.

Re: Why do they want to get rid of software engineers?

#50

Post by lewdev »

ekjhgkejhgk wrote: post #7

Software engineers are laborers. If you're a capital owner, a laborer is something that weights down your returns. It's not rocket science.

Yup, that's why stock prices increase in value when companies announce massive layoffs because they know their operating costs got much lower.

And software engineers and IT staff are notoriously expensive, so hearing about a way to get rid of them would excite any investor.

Post reply on HN