[bad_username]

We may be in the last Golden age of AI, where experienced professionals still exist who can code manually, and AI already exists who can code automatically, and when the former use the latter skillfully, wonders happen. This magical intersection may not exist iin the future, or become very rare.

[dozerly]

I think as long as it continues to be tangibly better these people will still exist and the intersection will continue to be valuable enough to survive.

[josephg]

> as long as it continues to be tangibly better these people will still exist

Sure. But how long will that last? LLMs are getting better at programming much faster than I am.

Imagine a plot with time on the X axis and LLM skill on the Y axis. The line goes up and to the right. On the left is GPT3, or GPT3.5 with the very first glimmers of programming ability just a few short years ago. In the middle is Opus 4.7 now.

Where's the intersection point, where AI skill is higher than that of humans? Less than 10 years. I'd guess less than 5 years.

[_under_scores_]

I think the problem is is that coding is not wholly a 'writing code' problem. It's a translation from idea to outcome. Often I think the bad code generated by an LLM is less to do with it's 'ability' and more to do with an instruction that hasn't adequately accounted for the possibility of what code satisfies the criteria. I'm not sure how a newer model can improve on this per se - sure there will be imrpovement on outright mistakes but for me at least, that's been and gone with more or less with any model released in te last 6 months.

[josephg]

I was coding something with claude the other day. It got the program working by all externally observable metrics, but when I went into the code it was full of DRY violations. It made a bunch of interrelated - but separate - traits for some concepts which simply didn't fit together.

I asked it to look at the code and come up with better factorings, but it failed. I ended up manually reworking several thousand lines of code myself, via my IDE. It took days.

I'd like a claude-of-the-future to be able to come up with beautiful ways to factor the code itself. Amongst the correct solutions, pick one which is conceptually simple. Write the code in a way that it makes subsequent changes easier to write. If I were doing RL with claude, I'd consider directing it toward solutions which allow subsequent changes to be implemented with as little effort as possible.

[vanuatu]

I think a better way to think about it is - what are the invariants to our current architecture? Why can't you tell Claude to build you a 1B$ business, make no mistakes?

I have no doubt they will be better programmers than almost every human that has ever existed. But the role of a SWE will expand to fill the gaps that the LLM paradigm hasn't filled:

- Accountability

- Long term architectural vision, goal setting

- Everchanging business context

- Mercurial executives, people problems, relationships etc...

[throwatdem12311]

Token efficiency is going to be the next big thing.

Tokenmaxxing an army of juniors will destroy your business through slop induced tech debt and API costs. A senior that uses AI but is token efficient will be like rocket fuel.

[dogleash]

>rocket fuel

Did you write this comment with AI, or can you explain why so many people use the exact same terrible metaphor?

[nicman23]

people said the same with any innovation

[javier123454321]

And you act like there hasn't been a loss once we moved away from the master craftsman style of building to the professionalized architect style of building. We cannot make a gothic cathedral amymore. also CAD, homogenized the built environment, significantly. And we have been losing a lot of traditional, artisanal craftsmen art forms over the past century. artisanal craft mounds,

[ant6n]

There at a lot of crafts that don’t have real deep experts anymore because the work was 90% automated.

[herrherrmann]

Did they? Genuine question, because I do wonder if people in some industries in the past were ever anxious about these specific things (especially skill attrition).

[dogleash]

> I do wonder if people in some industries in the past were ever anxious about these specific things (especially skill attrition).

I've spoken with some people (now in their 60s & 70s) that worried about skill atrophy in their line of work.

First they worried about atrophy. Then they watched skill dry up. Now they know it's not available to buy anywhere. In the better cases the skills still exist, but entirely overseas.

These are people I could recognize as sharp engineers, even if I don't know their domains at all. I had to take them at their word about the value in what was lost. The problem is that it's easy to assume that business (or at least society) would prevent degradation of valuable knowledge over time.