591–600 of 669 posts
Do we yet have actual, irrefutable evidence of SWE job losses attributable to successful implementation of LLM coding agents? They've been around long enough and management has been horny enough about the whole thing long enough that we should be able to point to some notable examples.
Every layoff just automatically attributed to AI even though they have nothing to do with it
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience, good software engineers are often better "engineers" than those working in more physical disciplines, because they get a lot more practice. But traditional engineers have a far better culture when it comes to testing and validation. Since the cycle time is longer, and the cost of mistakes is higher, analysis and testing are generally baked in from the beginning. In software, it's easier to skip that…
In my experience this works both ways too. Good engineers working on physical projects have picked up on some of the useful practices that good software developers have adopted for maintaining progress in the face of ambiguous requirements until they can be clarified and allowing as much flexibility as possible without necessarily compromising quality in the meantime. I believe these relationships can be summarised a…
There is zero useful evidence because there is no one to collect it.
The Institution of Civil Engineers was founded in 1818, after decades of random civil engineering societies in Britain doing the exact same thing we are now (running around like chickens with their heads cut off). It wasn't until after the ICE's Royal Charter a decade later that civil engineering began to get really systematized into the "real engineering" we know today and that charter effectively established them as a regulatory body that allowed that to happen.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Call me a gatekeeper if you want but, we ended up with a lot of people that just can't do the job. Increasingly I am of the opinion that software engineering aught to be a licensed profession, similar to civil engineers, medical professionals, or lawyers. A board of peers to hold you accountable and a licence that can be revoked at any time. Additionally, legislation could be written to require such licensed indivi…
> software engineering aught to be a licensed profession, similar to civil engineers, medical professionals, or lawyers. My experience with civil engineers and lawyers is many of them aren't worth spit. Licensing is not a magical cert that proves competence. BTW, if you hire a lawyer in WA state, be sure to ask if they passed the bar. The state has been licensing lawyers who don't pass it.
The way licensing fundamentally works is industry basically strikes a bargain with government to it's benefit. Government lets the licensing organization run a supply cartel and collect protection money (dues, test fees, whatever) so long as they promise to enforce (low) minimum standards along the way. Government gives licensees favorable treatment in court (statutory limits to liability, licensed professionals opinions are more equal than average peasants, etc, etc), etc. And all this stands so long as they do whatever the government's rules say (to the detriment of the customers). And of course the professionals make money hand over fist (or at least more than they're worth) in the process because the licensing organization constrains supply.
Society gets just enough scraps to provide the political will to get it done and keep it rolling (the low minimum standards).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I kind of think the whole "Learn to Code" push of the 2010s was one of the worst things that happened to our industry. Call me a gatekeeper if you want but, we ended up with a lot of people that just can't do the job. The problem is our industry mostly doesn't have any sort of reasonable mentorship or apprenticeship culture, so we've always left it to the engineers to teach themselves. Sink or swim. The problem is th…
The whole "learn to code" and software bootcamp craze always baffled me. Like what other profession markets themselves as "Hey, our job is so easy that any schmuck off the street can enter the career with 4 months of training." Practically every other job I can think of at a similar salary level has entrance requirements (e.g. grad school admissions exams), extensive and expensive training, a lengthy apprenticeship p…
It's the same behavior around consulting firms, code boot camps, and now AI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A colleague of mine came to me for advice. He wanted one of those high dollar jobs at a well-known MegaCorp. He knew a leetcode test was used by them. I suggested that his top priority was to study the leetcode books for the next 3 weeks. I told him those three weeks would be the best ROI he'd ever make. He did so. He aced the test. He got the job with a huge offer. He agreed that the ROI was out of the park! P.S. I'…
> He did so. He aced the test. He got the job with a huge offer. He agreed that the ROI was out of the park! ...and everybody clapped? I have news for you: passing an online leetcode is now so easy that an AI can do it. If you think you're catching the cheaters, you're just wrong. Leetcode was always a stupid test of competence, but it was cheap and it had a high true-negative rate, which filtered the riff-raff. That…
Do we yet have actual, irrefutable evidence of SWE job losses attributable to successful implementation of LLM coding agents? They've been around long enough and management has been horny enough about the whole thing long enough that we should be able to point to some notable examples.
I believe wholeheartedly that things like Claude code bring immense value but to management types they aren’t visible enough to prove their “ai first” narratives resulting in a bunch of crap they have us build that look and seem smart but in fact are just slop we have to deal with the consequences of. Good for job security I guess, but I’m getting pretty tired of it all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It won't be photoshop then. It will be shitty, buggy clunky app that costed a (major) fraction to develop but it will also earn a fraction. Companies like MS can afford this ie with Office suite but patience of markets and customers can allow them to go only so far, if ie Excel becomes semi-useless thats the end of Office and big cash cow for M$ (I'd say about time, that monopoly is not good for consumers at all). Th…
This is cope, ai coding agents will follow the path of self driving cars. They will be watched with extreme caution, but will slowly but surely expand outwards. Eventually manually writing code will be considered a dangerous/bug introducing act
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In my experience this works both ways too. Good engineers working on physical projects have picked up on some of the useful practices that good software developers have adopted for maintaining progress in the face of ambiguous requirements until they can be clarified and allowing as much flexibility as possible without necessarily compromising quality in the meantime. I believe these relationships can be summarised a…
> The problem for regulating software development is still who gets to formally determine who the "good" people are. This kind of thing should clearly be objective and evidence-based but what useful evidence do we have available? There is zero useful evidence because there is no one to collect it. The Institution of Civil Engineers was founded in 1818, after decades of random civil engineering societies in Britain do…
I'm not sure that is entirely true. There have certainly been a few people who have attempted to study what did or didn't work in industrial settings - either pure academics or people working in industrial research labs. But I agree that currently we have nowhere near enough data to form robust conclusions about almost anything in this field and I think this is the strongest argument that the industry is not ready for any kind of licensing and regulation regime.