[9rx]

At the end of the day, "AI" is just another programming language, albeit one that is much more accessible to the layman. When using AI, you become a software engineer. So it stands to reason that software engineering jobs are strong.

But what about pay? Elevator operator jobs have never been more prevalent, but increased accessibility to the layman pushed the price to zero.

[lm28469]

> When using AI, you become a software engineer.

When using a pen you become a poet ? lol

Most people who code aren't software engineers, you certainly can't extend the definition to every AI users

[9rx]

> When using a pen you become a poet ?

No. By definition, a poet writes poems. Not all pen use leads to poems.

By definition, engineers build systems. What else can you do with code (and LLMs; same thing) other than build systems?

[lm28469]

idk man, plenty of people have "ai" gf/bf/therapist, ask "ai" for vacation trip ideas, recipes, gym workouts, &c. I wouldn't even be surprised if most tokens were used on non software engineering tasks.

I have a zombie developer, coder, idk how to call them, in my team who doesn't talk to anyone, writes shit tier PRs and spends all day long talking to chatgpt. They're a prompter, a chatter, a waste of money, but certainly not an engineer

[9rx]

> idk man, plenty of people have "ai" gf/bf/therapist, ask "ai" for vacation trip ideas, recipes, gym workouts, &c.

Not without engineering a system to get the AI to generate a response they don't.

> non software engineering tasks.

There is no non-software engineering task when using an LLM. All LLM use first requires designing software to get the LLM to do anything. An LLM will not autonomously act on its own. It can only respond in accordance to the the program you have designed for it.

That program can be written in natural language, granted, but software programs are not limited by the particular language they are written in. Its not somehow not a program just because you didn't write machine code on punch cards.

[guywithahat]

In mechanical engineering you can be an engineer or a mechanic, or other things (like a hobbies or different degrees of casual work), and they're no interchangeable.

I think being an engineer implies it's a profession you've trained in and you're implementing the science behind it in a practical manor in some capacity (like a computer scientist studies computers, a computer engineer implements and builds the systems based upon this science).

[9rx]

> In mechanical engineering you can be an engineer or a mechanic, or other things

Sure. While some mechanics may sometimes find themselves having to design things to carry out their work (in which case they would be engineers during that time), generally speaking mechanics carry out the physical replacement of what engineers have already designed. They are not designing things themselves.

But there is no mechanic analog in computing. At least there isn't a human mechanic analog. One is always operating at the design level, regardless of whether the design is written in C, Rust, or natural language. All the engineering-adjacent work you find in other engineering disciplines is done by the computer in the software realm.

> I think being an engineer implies it's a profession you've trained in and you're implementing the science behind it in a practical manor in some capacity

That's what "professional engineer" implies, but we're talking about "engineer". There is no such connotations in the word engineer alone, hence the existence of the PE term.

[guywithahat]

I would say attaching things together with or from an LLM would be the analogy. Being a mechanic and being an engineer are both technical jobs which require skill, but one is design focused while the other is system focused.

I would also disagree that "professional engineer" is a meaningful distinction from engineer. I don't really think of an engineer as being something you can do casually, it's a profession.

Also re-reading my comment I should have said adjacent to mechanical engineering, generally you don't get a degree in mechanical engineering to become a mechanic.

[9rx]

> Being a mechanic and being an engineer are both technical jobs which require skill, but one is design focused while the other is system focused.

Right. And such software-based work is always design-focused. You're writing documents that specify how the computer is expected to function. The computer takes those specifications and turns it into something functional. I think you can make a good case the latter is system work, but not something humans participate in.

In the olden days we had to write those specifications in arcane languages that were a speciality to learn. Now you can write the specifications in plain English, more or less. That's evolutionary, but since the advent of the compiler we've always been moving towards the language being more and more like English (or insert other natural language, if you prefer). Such progress is nothing new.

Perhaps it's like the difference between a manual and automatic transmission. Gearheads worried about their personhood might try to argue otherwise, but in reality you aren't not a driver if your car has an automatic transmission. It is not the exact details of the tool that defines the act you are engaging in. Likewise, you don't suddenly stop being an engineer just because the tools have now made it "easy".

> I don't really think of an engineer as being something you can do casually, it's a profession.

You're always free to come up with your own pet definition, but per the record of how the word is most commonly used out there in the world, there is no connotations to one's skill, ability, quality, or anything of that nature that is normally associated with professional engineer. It only refers to the act itself in any capacity. Which, of course, is why we also coined the term "professional engineer". That would have be entirely pointless — and therefore would have never been adopted — if "engineer" already captured that sentiment under common use.

[QuercusMax]

You can make a lot of slop of all different sorts with LLMs. That has very little in common with building systems.

[9rx]

"Slop" suggests that the only difference is in quality, but the definition of engineer says nothing of quality.

Perhaps you might consider using an LLM to build a system that creates a response that is more coherent?

[lm28469]

> the definition of engineer says nothing of quality

The definition you used makes someone who maintain a twitter account or use a coffee machine an "engineer"... everyone is an engineer by that definition really

[9rx]

It's not just the definition I use, it is the most common definition people use according to the records we keep.

And yes, someone who builds a system to generate Twitter content or maintains a coffee machine are definitely engineers.

Professional engineering societies don't like that fact and often try to usurp the term for their own financial gain, but that's not how English works. Definitions derive from use, not what a small group of people wish were so, and the record that keeps track of use is abundantly clear how the word is most commonly used.

[QuercusMax]

Slop doesn't suggest the difference is only in quality, but also in form. Words have meanings, ya know?

I can have an LLM generate me code-like text all day long, but that doesn't means it's building a system. Just like I can eat Chicken McNuggets all day long, but that doesn't mean I'm eating a roast chicken.

[9rx]

> I can have an LLM generate me code-like text all day long, but that doesn't means it's building a system.

I don't follow. An LLM doesn't magically output code-like text, or anything else for that matter, on a whim. You have to build a system that describes your intent to the machine. Only then might it output code-like text, if that's what your system describes. It's not the execution of your code that makes you an engineer. It's building a system that can be executed in the first place that makes you a (software) engineer.

[hitarpetar]

wow epic comeback man can you share the prompt you used to generate it?

[9rx]

I'm told you don't need to build a prompt. That would be engineering, which apparently isn't involved in the use of LLMs.

[dylan604]

> When using AI, you become a software engineer.

No. You do not. It may make you a developer, at best. I don't even call my self a software engineer, because I'm not. I'm a self taught coder that has spent 25+ years gaining experience, but I've never graduated from a school with any kind on engineering degree. I started CSE way back in the 90s, but stopped because life got in the way.

Maybe you're joking, but you just know people actually feel this way. They have no idea the difference of a coder and an SWE, and flippant comments don't help

[9rx]

> but I've never graduated from a school with any kind on engineering degree.

So? Per the dictionary, engineer is clearly defined as: A person who designs, builds, or maintains machines, structures, or systems. There is no mention of school or having an engineering degree.

It has always been a bit debatable if software fits into machine, structure, or system, granted, but we generally have come to agree that it does. And per the context of discussion, we've already established that it does for the sake of discussion. On that understanding, designing/building/maintaining a system in "LLM code" instead of C++ code is fundamentally no different.

You're likely confusing engineer with Professional Engineer™, but that's something else entirely. That obviously has nothing to do with anything that we're talking about here.

[rvz]

> When using AI, you become a software engineer.

Stopped reading.

VR flight simulator software is accessible to the layman. Does that make them qualified to be a captain (pilot-in-command) for a commercial passenger plane?

[9rx]

> VR flight simulator software is accessible to the layman. Does that make them qualified to be a captain (pilot-in-command) for a commercial passenger plane?

No. They might be able to fly a plane poorly, though. Engineer doesn't imply being qualified, only engaging in the act of designing, building, or maintaining a machine, structure, or system. You don't have to be qualified, or even be good at it, to carry out those acts.

You're probably thinking of Professional Engineer™, which does represent recognized qualifications, but that's something completely different. Obviously if Professional Engineer™ was meant, Professional Engineer™ would have been written.

[geodel]

Huh, Pilot/ Captain job requirement for commercial plane is highly regulated by authorities like FAA etc but software engineer has no such requirement. Any random business with some basic software requirement can ask an employee or contractor to get something developed quickly and deployed it. They may start calling that person software engineer.

Further even if you have some strict ACM/IEEE definition of Software Engineer®, a person is not going to end up in jail if they don't fulfill those but call themselves software engineer nonetheless.

[rvz]

> Huh, Pilot/ Captain job requirement for commercial plane is highly regulated by authorities like FAA etc but software engineer has no such requirement. ny random business with some basic software requirement can ask an employee or contractor to get something developed quickly and deployed it. They may start calling that person software engineer.

Exactly the problem. Secondly, if I am building commercial plane software for pilots to use, you wouldn't want to hire unqualified / in-experienced 'engineers' for all the critical work and validation testing. (or even AI vibe-coders picked from anywhere.)

Because surely, that worked out for Boeing. [0] /s

> Further even if you have some strict ACM/IEEE definition of Software Engineer®, a person is not going to end up in jail if they don't fulfill those but call themselves software engineer nonetheless.

So we are now defending fraud if one calls themselves an SWE on their CV with zero experience other than an AI doing all the coding?

It's like you want to take the legal risk hoping that the employer / company won't sue you for fraud when that vibe-coded software goes all wrong and money is lost.

[0] https://www.industryweek.com/supply-chain/article/22027840/b...

[eMPee584]

At the end of this day.. and of the next. But at some point, the tool will "suddenly" turn into a versatile agent, and that time might be a lot sooner than most expect (c.f. "exponential growth surprise factor"...)