[puritanicdev]

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.

[nDRDY]

>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.

You'll be replaced by someone cheaper using AI.

[sdevonoes]

> Evaluating whether it’s actually correct and maintainable is the hard part.

But AI can also do that. So, what’s the point? And if you think it can’t, wait one more year

[puritanicdev]

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

What time to be alive, eh?

[gspr]

> > 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!

[jkercher]

Sam?