[sickofparadox]

Too late, we already kicked the ladder out and the hit isn't going to be felt until the people responsible have moved on.

[Terr_]

I worry there's an executive zeitgeist of: "Let someone else train them up, then we'll hire them away afterwards."

[MBCook]

Yeah it’s already been going on. All the “you need 5 years of experience for entry level work” stuff you see.

Encouraging AI to replace people is just going to make it worse, on top of all the other possible issues.

[Terr_]

I'm struck by a quixotic idea where future-companies return to a "X years service for a gold watch and a pension" approach. I don't actually think it would happen though.

A not-too-dreary idea: Perhaps the the beginning of the career-arc will change in terms of how quickly developers need to focus on code-reviews and diagnostics (of LLM output) at the expense of "read the docs and follow a guide." Of course that depends on a cultural understanding that LLM output must be checked, and that may take some major industry to become accepted by non-developer bosses, if ever.

[MBCook]

My concern is that’s not a good way of learning, that it will produce lower quality devs than the traditional model. Or at least takes longer to get to the same point.

I’ve already seen higher level devs ask AIs questions and just copy/paste the answer without checking it as if that’s useful or trustworthy. How is a junior supposed to learn?