|
Have you ever seen anyone build a software project end-to-end using only "AI" to write code? It can be done and the process is illuminating, specifically when you look at what the AI actually contributes. At the very minimum, you need a human operator who can a) work with stakeholders to gather requirements and express them as unambiguous prompts, b) debug code that they themselves didn't write and c) build a coherent architecture for integrating, packaging, and deploying the code IRL. In a very tangible sense, it's similar to outsourcing the coding to a consultant who is fast but sloppy and hard to communicate with. They may be quick but it takes considerable effort to clean up after them. No manager would ever put up with a human employee that "behaved" like an LLM (fast delivery with no quality control, outright lies and hallucinations, constantly ignoring subtle aspects of the instructions). LLMs are cheap and fast, but you must compensate heavily for their faults. Think about the core skills that we identified as table stakes for working effectively with AI: sussing out requirements, exceptional debugging, and a solid sense of software architecture. I think you find those are the core skills of most good software developers! AI merely raises the bar for software professionalism - it's no longer enough to "just write code", you need engineering leadership and project management skills to tie it all together. Those skills are now in higher demand. The only programming jobs that need to be worried are the mindless code-monkey positions. If your only contribution is the code you type in your editor, yeah AI's taking your job tomorrow. As we flood the market with "code", consider that its value trends toward zero. And since code is but one of the necessary ingredients in making a software system, those other factors rise in value. |