[ryandrake]

> Same, if anything, the opposite seems to be true, the ones that I'd call "good engineers" were slower

Unfortunately, a lot of workplaces are ignoring this, believing their engineers are assembly line workers, and the ones who complete 10 widgets per minute are simply better than the ones who complete 5 widgets per minute.

[nathan_compton]

It isn't just that they believe this - they want a business model where this is how it works. For a big company a star coder is a liability - they have strong labor power, they can leave and they are hard to replace, etc.

Companies want workflows that work with mediocre programmers because they are more like interchangeable parts. This is the real secret to why AI programming will work in a lot of places. If you look at the externalities of employing talented people, shitty code actually looks better than great code.

[ryandrake]

To these kinds of companies, what's even better than a rack of mediocre programmers? AI agents that you can just conjure up and prompt. They take up no facility space, don't require lunch breaks or vacations, obey all commands and direction, and produce a predictable and consistent amount of output per dollar.

This is the earworm the leaders of these companies have allowed into their minds. Like Agent Mulder, they Want To Believe in this so badly...

[overfeed]

> This is the earworm the leaders of these companies have allowed into their minds. Like Agent Mulder, they Want To Believe in this so badly...

If you assume they are not idiots and analyze the FOMO incentives via a little game-theory, it becomes clear why.

Assuming the competition has adopted AI, leadership can ignore it, or pursue it. If they adopt it, then they are level with the completion whether AI actually succeeds or fails - they get to keep their executive job.

If leadership ignores AI, and it actually delivers the productivity gains to the competition, they will be fired. If they ignore AI and it's a bust, they gain nothing.

[m4x]

If AI turns out to be a bust, ignoring it could become a significant win. One possible outcome of AI adoption is that existing code bases are degraded, and existing programmer capability is allowed to atrophy. In that situation, companies that adopt AI lose out relative to companies that eschew it.

[untrust]

What if the outcome is the competition burns their money on LLM usage for little to no gain? If you're an exec and you jumped into LLMs as well then you also lose any advantage you would have had by saving your money or hiring a few more humans.

[overfeed]

> What if the outcome is the competition burns their money on LLM usage for little to no gain?

The company does better than the money-burning competition, but the executives personally gain nothing; there are no bonuses just because the competition took a misstep.

[sanderjd]

Yeah but does this work? Are there companies doing this successfully?

[duskdozer]

It's also true that a lot of times, it doesn't even matter how shitty the code is. For example, I'm locked in to a company whose web "app" hasn't functioned for me for the vast majority of the last two to three years. I can't leave without effectively being required to leave my job. So, they still get my business.

[datsci_est_2015]

Glad I find myself employed under a division called Research and Development. Poaching and retaining highly compensated individuals is the entire purpose.

[anal_reactor]

Bingo. This is something that many people fail to understand.

[hyperadvanced]

I think you can understand that line of reasoning, but you can question its feasibility. You might not have any “star coders”, nor need them day-to-day, but I think the cost of not having one true expert, or having a completely vibe coded system that crashes in production will be extremely high.

[sanderjd]

Which workplaces?