|
|
|
|
|
|
by t2riRXawYxLGGYb
821 days ago
|
|
|
He may be right or he may be wrong - it's great that we're having this conversation. One thing that is overlooked here is that we're in the business of creating things to solve problems in the world. Code is simply the medium of creation. Perhaps writing code does get scaled down over time and replaced with AI to a large extent. But the basic business and human needs that the code is solving doesn't necessarily disappear. Product management will still exist and there will be a need for humans that can talk to their human customers to understand their human needs. If the next step in that process of creation is prompt engineering and reviewing AI-written code, so what? As creators and problem solvers, we need to always be reinventing ourselves anyways. This will be a particularly painful and uncertain time for anyone whose job is going to look drastically different in the future, which is most of us. But I don't think that these arguments necessarily apply any more to software engineers than they do to a lot of other careers like writing, law, art, or movie production. |
|
|
1. It’s boring, soul-crushing paint by numbers scutwork
2. We value correctness and there’s no guarantee of it with LLMs
3. We value comprehensibility (answering the question “why did that happen?” in our systems) and there is an event horizon in these models past which we cannot see further.
4. If the jobs of software developers are materially under threat from this technology then no job that does not involve putting your hands on something or someone, or that does not have a legal/regulatory moat, is safe. Our society is in no way prepared for > 20% of its decent middle class jobs to disappear in 10 years time.