Compiler developers couldn't beat compilers at generating code either.
AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
41–50 of 81 posts
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#42I have yet to hear a single convincing argument by a person that works in software why they can't be replaced.
Maybe tomorrow, but they're just still not there quite yet. For non-software developers, there's a "vibe coding wall" that gets hit and the project needs a software developer to unwind. Maybe Mythos or codex-5.6 will be able to do it, but Opus 4.8 and codex-5.5 still get stuck without proper guidance.
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this makes any sense. Companies with managers that think AI capabilities are superior will be replaced if they are wrong as the companies will perform very poorly.
The lag time between firing your core team and finding out that was a bad idea can be measured in years of slow attrition.
Actually workflow impact in the world of software can be observed in weeks/months at max. And token spending too, is a voice that they see at the high floors. Also, there was never a strong willing in IT companies to reduce cost of work force: it is done sometimes, but it is more common to see them over-hiring.
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#44[dead]
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d reframe it: you won’t be replaced by someone using AI, you’ll be replaced by someone who is better at using AI and understands the code it generates Over the last couple of years, I’ve seen plenty of developers who remain barely competent despite having access to powerful AI tools. Generating code is easy. Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part.
> Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part. But AI can also do that. So, what’s the point? And if you think it can’t, wait one more year
> > Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part.
> But AI can also do that.
Citation needed.
> So, what’s the point?
The point is that there haven't been broad demonstrations of your claim.
> And if you think it can’t, wait one more year
You surely must understand that this isn't an argument? How many hundreds of billions have been burned through now? Yet we still have to suffer "soon" as an argument? I can't take any of this seriously anymore.
PS: Just to be absolutely sure you don't misunderstand me: I am NOT claiming that AI will never be able to do this stuff. Nor am I even claiming that it's too far off or too expensive. Just, for the love of god, you cannot build an industry on promises of how amazing it'll be in the future. Technology is evaluated based on how it performs. Not how you think it might perform in the future.
PPS: The last paragraph does also not mean that I think it's bad to invest in things that haven't yet paid off. On the contrary! What I am saying is you cannot claim success until there's success!
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your job safety doesn’t depend on the capabilities of AI but on what management thinks are the capabilities of AI
I don't think this makes any sense. Companies with managers that think AI capabilities are superior will be replaced if they are wrong as the companies will perform very poorly.
Hello, efficient market fallacy. Markets are not actually efficient, and especially not instantaneously so. There are a million ways to observe various market inefficiencies[1], so it's childishly naive to assert that they are in fact perfectly efficient according to some ideological belief of yours without considering reality.
[1] Some examples: https://danluu.com/nothing-works/
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#47I have yet to hear a single convincing argument by a person that works in software why they can't be replaced.
Don't fall for it. Its a trick question. Capitalism made everybody replaceable a long time ago. :P
The more interesting question is: Has the ease of replacibility increased because of AI?
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#48If you use AI to do your work, you can be replaced by someone else using AI to do your work.
I'm not convinced by this. I've had good managers and bad managers. Generally the manager isn't "doing the work", so much as setting the direction and smoothing the path. The current state of AI tools still need "good managers" to set the direction, otherwise they end up nowhere. Especially in large complex projects.
Maybe at some point the AI tooling will be good enough for me to say "do my work for me today" and sit back. At that point, yes, I am irrelevant and could be replaced by anyone else. But is it anywhere close to that right now? My experience says no.
Perhaps the current models are capable of that with the right tooling - some system to define clear goals and stick to them. I haven't seen evidence of that yet though. Have other people?
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’d reframe it: you won’t be replaced by someone using AI, you’ll be replaced by someone who is better at using AI and understands the code it generates Over the last couple of years, I’ve seen plenty of developers who remain barely competent despite having access to powerful AI tools. Generating code is easy. Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part.
> Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part. But AI can also do that. So, what’s the point? And if you think it can’t, wait one more year
Sam?
Re: AI Engineers aren't safe from being replaced by AI
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've yet to hear an argument that argues that software engineers can be replaced by AI that doesnt boil down to slop apologism, inability to detect slop or simple gaslighting. These are things I've come to expect from bots, clueless journalists, clueless juniors, clueless expert beginners and clueless members of the professional managerial class but almost never from experienced software engineers. To be fair, season…
The argument is "Software Engineer" sounds like "Programmer" to me and "Programming" is just typing lines of code, AI can do all that typing quicker than a human so there we go. Currently leading an Integration that for the most part needs no new code written and the CEO is breathing down my neck telling me to cut my 4 week estimate down to 1 because "can't i just use AI like the other firms do?". There's a morbid pa…
Doctor sounds like Nurse, which sounds like applying bandages and taking temperatures.
Physicist sounds like Lab Technician, which sounds like managing samples.
Electrical Engineer sounds like Electrician, which sounds like installing a bunch of wire.
Stunt Driver sounds like Uber Driver which sounds like pushing pedals and turning a wheel.
It’s fun to pretend the world is much simpler than it is.