[paxys]

And there might be a giant asteroid that strikes the earth a few years down the line ending human civilization.

If there is some magic $10k AI that can fully replace a $200k software engineer then I'd love to see it. Until that happens this entire discussion is science fiction.

[alastairr]

You don’t need to completely replace a whole 200k engineer. You just need to increase each engineer’s productivity sufficiently that you can reduce the total number of engineers in your company.

[motorest]

> If there is some magic $10k AI that can fully replace a $200k software engineer then I'd love to see it.

I think you have multiple offers of that very AI dangling in front of you, but you might be refusing to acknowledge them. One of the problems is the way you opt to frame the issue. Does "replacing" means firing the guy hoping to replace him with a Slack webhook? Or does it mean your team decides they don't need the same headcount of medior/senior engineers because a team of junior engineers mentored by someone focusing on quality ends up being more productive?

[spiderice]

If experts were saying the astroid will hit earth in the next 5 years, would it still be science fiction?

You acting like those two scenarios are the same is disingenuous. Fuck that.

[lukeschlather]

Experts understand orbital mechanics pretty well. If experts say an asteroid in the next 5 years it's pretty similar to saying that a rock dropped from the top of a skyscraper will hit the ground. It happens billions of times every day, we know the cause and effect.

With AI, there's no real expertise involved in saying "well, it was very stupid 5 years ago, now it's starting to seem smart, if we extrapolate it's going to be smarter than me in 5 years." But no one really knows what level of effort is required to make it smarter than me. No one is an expert in something that doesn't exist yet.

[paxys]

Remove all the "experts" who have a major conflict of interest (running AI startups, selling AI courses, wanting to pump their company's stock price by associating with AI) and you'll find that very few actual experts in the field hold this view.

[TeMPOraL]

Yup, because it's a stupid view. Good enough AI is right here, right now, today; it's already impacting day-to-day work in the software industry. That one is blindingly obvious to anyone who actually bothers to look around. You don't need experts to tell you the water is wet. It takes something special to try and deny this.

It may not manifest as job loss yet, but the market response to changes is a whole other thing. For one, it's likely to first manifest as slowing down hiring relative to amount of projects being started and then released. Software is a growing market after all.

[motorest]

> Remove all the "experts" who have a major conflict of interest (...) and you'll find that very few actual experts in the field hold this view.

You might seek comfort in your conspiracy theories, but back in the real world the likes of me were already quite capable of creating complete and fully working projects from scratch using yesterday's LLMs.

We are talking about afternoons where you grab your coffee, saying to yourself "let's see what this vibecode thing is all about", and challenging yourself to create projects from scratch using nothing but a definition of done, LLM prompts, and a free-tier LLM configured to run in agent mode.

What, then?

You then can proceed to nitpick about code quality and bugs, but I can also say the same thing about your work, which you take far longer to deliver.

[TeMPOraL]

It's not. Consider that replacing the only $200k software engineer on the project is different than replacing the third or tenth $200k software engineer on the project. To the extent AI is improving productivity of those engineers, it reduces the need for adding more engineers to that team. That may mean firing some of them, or just not hiring new ones (or fewer of them) as the project expands, as existing ones + AI can keep up with increased workload.

[nand_gate]

I'm biased but my money's on the end result of AI being fewer engineers per team but also teams as a concept becoming obsolete.

Why keep legacy structures, with luxuries like POs or PMs if AI becomes powerful as you say - it'll just be 'one man startups' for better or worse.

Any empire-building VP should probably fear the wishful AI future they're praying for!

[TeMPOraL]

> it'll just be 'one man startups' for better or worse.

Not necessarily. The reality is, whatever some people can do individually, if they team up, they can do more together. The teams and small startups will remain for now, and so will big companies.

I do imagine however that the internal structure will change. As the AI gets better and able to do more independently, people will shift from pair programming to more of a PM role (this is happening now), and this I imagine will quickly collapse further.

Even today, LLMs seem more suited for project management than doing actual coding - it's just the space in-between that's the problem. I.e. LLMs can code great in the small, and can break down work very well, but keeping the changes consistent and following the plan is where they still struggle. As that gap closes, I'm not really sure how the team composition would look like. But I don't doubt there'd still be teams.