I'm not sure what the take-home of this message is since you can replace "AI" with just about anything... "If you use a keyboard to do your work, you can be replaced by someone else using a keyboard to do your work." Sure? You can always be replaced by someone/something that can do your job better.
A keyboard doesn't "do" the work. In other words, the more work you outsource to AI, the lower your value-add becomes, the easier your are to replace by someone doing the same thing for cheaper.
I'm not convinced by this. I've had good managers and bad managers. Generally the manager isn't "doing the work", so much as setting the direction and smoothing the path. The current state of AI tools still need "good managers" to set the direction, otherwise they end up nowhere. Especially in large complex projects.
Maybe at some point the AI tooling will be good enough for me to say "do my work for me today" and sit back. At that point, yes, I am irrelevant and could be replaced by anyone else. But is it anywhere close to that right now? My experience says no.
Perhaps the current models are capable of that with the right tooling - some system to define clear goals and stick to them. I haven't seen evidence of that yet though. Have other people?
I’d reframe it: you won’t be replaced by someone using AI, you’ll be replaced by someone who is better at using AI and understands the code it generates
Over the last couple of years, I’ve seen plenty of developers who remain barely competent despite having access to powerful AI tools. Generating code is easy. Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part.
>you’ll be replaced by someone who is better at using AI
I place very little value in the idea of "getting better at using AI". It's like getting better at using a library, or getting better at using Google. Now that LLMs are widely available, their entire intent is to make it significantly easier to access information held in a truly vast body of written work.
I have also seen no evidence that understanding the resulting generated code is necessary.
If your job has a large component of regurgitating existing information, you are now competing with a machine that can regurgitate hugely more information and with lower-skilled operators.
If Ai can generate code, review code, validate correctness, understand reqs, make architectural tradeoffs, operate systems, and take responsibility for outcomes, then we're no longer talking about replacing programmers. We’re talking about replacing most knowledge workers
At that point the debate isn’t really about software engineering anymore
> > Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part.
> But AI can also do that.
Citation needed.
> So, what’s the point?
The point is that there haven't been broad demonstrations of your claim.
> And if you think it can’t, wait one more year
You surely must understand that this isn't an argument? How many hundreds of billions have been burned through now? Yet we still have to suffer "soon" as an argument? I can't take any of this seriously anymore.
PS: Just to be absolutely sure you don't misunderstand me: I am NOT claiming that AI will never be able to do this stuff. Nor am I even claiming that it's too far off or too expensive. Just, for the love of god, you cannot build an industry on promises of how amazing it'll be in the future. Technology is evaluated based on how it performs. Not how you think it might perform in the future.
PPS: The last paragraph does also not mean that I think it's bad to invest in things that haven't yet paid off. On the contrary! What I am saying is you cannot claim success until there's success!
Right. If you were previously digging with your bare hands, and one day everyone starts turning up with these new-fangled shovels, you'll find that both your hand-digging skills are not needed, and that hole production may exceed demand.