[RangerScience]

Fav anecdote from ages ago:

When hand-held power tools became a thing, the Hollywood set builder’s union was afraid of this exact same thing - people would be replaced by the tools.

Instead, productions built bigger sets (the ceiling was raised) and smaller productions could get in on things (the floor was lowered).

I always took that to mean “people aren’t going to spend less to do the job - they’ll just do a bigger job.”

[esmevane]

It's always played out like this in software, by the way. Famously, animation shops hoped to save money on production by switching over to computer rendered cartoons. What happened instead is that a whole new industry took shape, and brought along with it entire cottage industries of support workers. Server farms required IT, renders required more advanced chips, some kinds of animation required entirely new rendering techniques in the software, etc.

A few hundred animators turned into a few thousand computer animators & their new support crew, in most shops. And new, smaller shops took form! But the shops didn't go away, at least not the ones who changed.

It basically boils down to this: some shops will act with haste and purge their experts in order to replace them with LLMs, and others will adopt the LLMs, bring on the new support staff they need, and find a way to synthesize a new process that involves experts and LLMs.

Shops who've abandoned their experts will immediately begin to stagnate and produce more and more mediocre slop (we're seeing it already!) and the shops who metamorphose into the new model you're speculating at will, meanwhile, create a whole new era of process and production. Right now, you really want to be in that second camp - the synthesizers. Eventually the incumbents will have no choice but to buy up those new players in order to coup their process.

[rendaw]

And 3D animation still requires hand animation! Nobody starts with 3D animation, the senior animators are doing storyboards and keyframes which they _then_ use as a guide for 3D animation.

[mitthrowaway2]

The saddle, the stirrup, the horseshoe, the wagon, the plough, and the drawbar all enhanced the productivity of horses and we only ended up employing more of them.

Then the steam engine and internal combustion engine came around and work horses all but disappeared.

There's no economic law that says a new productivity-enhancing programming tool is always a stirrup and never a steam engine.

[RangerScience]

I think you raise an excellent point, and can use your point to figure out how it could apply in this case.

All the tools that are stirrups were used "by the horse" (you get what I mean); that implies to me that so long as the AI tools are used by the programmers (what we've currently got), they're stirrups.

The steam engines were used by the people "employing the horse" - ala, "people don't buy drills they buy holes" (people don't employ horses, they move stuff) - so that's what to look for to see what's a steam engine.

IMHO, as long as all this is "telling the computer what to do", it's stirrups, because that's what we've been doing. If it becomes something else, then maybe it's a steam engine.

And, to repeat - thank you for this point, it's an excellent one, and provides some good language for talking about it.

[mitthrowaway2]

Thanks for the warm feedback!

Maybe another interesting case would be secretaries. It used to be very common that even middle management positions at small to medium companies would have personal human secretaries and assistants, but now they're very rare. Maybe some senior executives at large corporations and government agencies still have them, but I have never met one in North America who does.

Below that level it's become the standard that people do their own typing, manage their own appointments and answer their own emails. I think that's mainly because computers made it easy and automated enough that it doesn't take a full time staffer, and computer literacy got widespread enough that anyone could do it themselves without specialized skills.

So if programming got easy enough that you don't need programmers to do the work, then perhaps we could see the profession hollow out. Alternatively we could run out of demand for software but that seems less likely!

(a related article: https://archive.is/cAKmu )

[karaterobot]

Another anecdote: when mechanical looms became a thing, textile workers were afraid that the new tools would replace them, and they were right.

[esmevane]

Oh my, no. Fabrics and things made from fabrics remain largely produced by human workers.

Those textile workers were afraid machines would replace them, but that didn't happen - the work was sent overseas, to countries with cheaper labor. It was completely tucked away from regulation and domestic scrutiny, and so remains to this day a hotbed of human rights abuses.

The phenomenon you're describing wasn't an industry vanishing due to automation. You're describing a moment where a domestic industry vanished because the cost of overhauling the machinery in domestic production facilities was near to the cost of establishing an entirely new production facility in a cheaper, more easily exploitable location.

[karaterobot]

I think you're talking about people who sew garments, not people who create textile fabrics. In any case, the 19th century British textile workers we all know I'm talking about really did lose their jobs, and those jobs did not return.

[hnthrowaway6543]

430 million people currently work in textiles[0]; how big was the industry before mechanical looms?

[0] https://www.uniformmarket.com/statistics/global-apparel-indu...

[fragmede]

How many worked in America and Western Europe and were paid a living wage in their respective countries, and how many of those 430 million people currently work making textiles in America and Western Europe today, and how many are lower paid positions in poorer countries, under worse living conditions? (Like being locked into the sweatshop, and bathroom breaks being regulated?)

Computers aren't going anywhere, so the whole field of programming will continue to grow, but will there still be FAANG salaries to be had?

[jayd16]

That's a different topic entirely.

[madmask]

I think this is THE point.

[hnthrowaway6543]

i heard the same shit when people were talking about outsourcing to India after the dotcom bubble burst. programmer salaries would cap out at $60k because of international competition.

if you're afraid of salaries shrinking due to LLMs, then i implore you, get out of software development. it'll help me a lot!

[throw234234234]

It solely depends on whether more software being built is being constrained by feasibility/cost or a lack of commercial opportunities.

Software is typically not a cost constrained activity due to its typically higher ROI/scale. Its all about fixed costs and scaling profits mostly. Unfortunately given this my current belief is that on balance AI will destroy many jobs in this industry if it gets to the point where it can do a software job.

Assuming inelastic demand (software demand relative to SWE costs) any cost reductions in inputs (e.g. AI) won't translate to much more demand in software. The same effect that drove SWE prices high and didn't change demand for software all that much (explains the 2010's IMO particularly in places like SV) also works in reverse.

[robwwilliams]

Is there a good reason to assume inelastic demand? In my field —- biomedical research —-I see huge untapped areas in need of much more and better core programming services. Instead we “rely” way too much on grad students (not even junior SWEs) who know a bit of Python.

[throw234234234]

Depends on the niche (software is broad) but I think as a whole for the large software efforts employing a good chunk of the market - I think so. Two main reasons for thinking this way:

- Software scales; generally it is a function of market size, reach, network effects, etc. Cost is a factor but not the greatest factor. Most software makes profit "at scale" - engineering is a capital fixed cost. This means that software feasibility is generally inelastic to cost or rather - if I make SWE's cheaper/not required to employ it wouldn't change the potential profit vs cost equation much IMV for many different opportunities. Software is limited more by ideas, and potential untapped market opportunities. Yes - it would be much cheaper to build things; but it wouldn't change the feasibility of a lot of project assessments since cost of SWE's at least from what I've seen in assessments isn't the biggest factor. This effect plays out to varying degrees in a lot of capex - as long as the ROI makes sense its worth going ahead especially for larger orgs who have more access to capital. The ROI from scale dwarfs potential cost rises often making it less of a function of end SWE demand. This effect happens in other engineering disciplines as well to varying effects - software just has it in spades until you mix hardware scaling into the mix (e.g GPUs).

- The previous "golden era" where the in-elasticity of software demand w.r.t cost meant salaries just kept rising. Inelasticity can be good for sellers of a commodity if demand increases. More importantly demand didn't really decrease for most companies as SWE salaries kept rising - entry requirements were relaxing generally. The good side of in-elasticity is reversed potentially by AI making it a bad thing.

However small "throwaway" software which does have a "is it worth it/cost factor" will increase under AI most probably. Just don't think it will offset the reduction demanded by capital holders; nor will it be necessarily done by the same people anyway (democratizing software dev) meaning it isn't a job saver.

In your case I would imagine there is a reason why said software doesn't have SWE's coding it now - it isn't feasible given the likely scale it would have (I assume just your team). AI may make it feasible, but that doesn't help the OP in the way it does it - it does so by making it feasible for as you put it junior out of uni not even "SWE" grads. That doesn't help the OP.

[kbelder]

And that was good. Workers being replaced by tools is good for society, although temporarily disruptive.

[sigmarule]

This could very well prove to be the case in software engineering, but also could very well not; what is the equivalent of "larger sets" in our domain, and is that something that is even preferable to begin with? Should we build larger codebases just because we _can_? I'd say likely not, while it does make sense to build larger/more elaborate movie sets because they could.

Also, a piece missing from this comparison is a set of people who don't believe the new tool will actually have a measurable impact on their domain. I assume few-to-none could argue that power tools would have no impact on their profession.

[ska]

> Should we build larger codebases just because we _can_?

The history of software production as a profession (as against computer science) is essentially a series of incremental increases in the size and complexity of systems (and teams) that don't fall apart under their own weight. There isn't much evidence we have approached the limit here, so it's a pretty good bet for at least the medium term.

But focusing on system size is perhaps a red herring. There is an almost unfathomably vast pool of potential software systems (or customization of systems) that aren't realized today because they aren't cost effective...

[danenania]

Have you ever worked on a product in production use without a long backlog of features/improvements/tests/refactors/optimizations desired by users, managers, engineers, and everyone else involved in any way with the project?

The demand for software improvements is effectively inexhaustible. It’s not a zero sum game.

[pixeltechie]

This is a good example of what could happen to software development as a whole. In my experience large companies tend to more often buy software rather than make it. Ai could drastically change the "make or buy" decision in favour of make. Because you need less developers to create a perfect tailored solution that directly fits the needs of the company. So "make" becomes affordable and more attractive.

[F-W-M]

I work for a large european power utility. We are moving away from buying to in-house development. LLMs have nothing to do with it.

[nidnogg]

This is a real thing. LLMs are tools, not humans. They truly do bring interesting, bigger problems.

Have people seen some of the recent software being churned out? Hint, it's not all GenAI bubblespit. A lot of it is killer, legitimately good stuff.