[embedding-shape]

Not sound harsh but that the people who solved problems with code just because they love coding disappears from problem-solving environments does sounds like a win-win for everyone involved. I've both been in situations where I loved coding the solution more than I want the problem solved, and I got in the way of people who just wanted the solution, and vice-versa where architect-astronauts are more interested in coding then solving things so they get in the way. If these could be better separated, that feels like the right direction, in both cases.

[ehnto]

I think I understand, but I will say that problem solvers are often masquerading as coders. I think they will leave software too. It is exactly the interesting problem solving that goes missing with heavy LLM use. Most business problems are not that challenging, from a problem solving perspective, that's just life. So the interesting part was always the problem solving in the build. I have built things with a huge spectrum of skills and tech, not just software. I learn details fast and have good systems thinking that help me apply that new knowledge.

What LLM usage has changed is that there is no longer a deep dive into domain knowledge, the LLM goes off and does that. Then implementation time comes and again it's just handholding the drunk chatbot inside the codebase until it is done. The whole time my mind is barely engaged. Yes my expertise is required to guide it, I am constantly catching issues and problems it generates, but that's still not engaging the problem solving skillset I developed. It's just leveraging my experience.

[throw-the-towel]

Loving code does not necessarily mean being an architecture astronaut.

[embedding-shape]

The people I'm talking about literally like coding for the sake of coding (many have shared comments here on HN about it in the past too), which I think is the same group who now are loosing their "passion for software engineering" as the LLM takes over the typing/coding part, but still leaves the design/intention to the human. But yes I agree, one does not equal the other, but if one person has one of those characteristics they tend to also have a bit of the other, at least in my experience.

[skydhash]

If you have ever endured the pain of bad code and cumbersome architecture when trying to fix a bug or implementing a feature, you start to be adverse to anything that increase the likelihood of it happening.

Most people that happily use the LLM for coding either are not responsible for the code running or have no qualms to being a reverse centaur.

[pydry]

Weird. Ive seen the exact opposite. The LLM drones talking endlessly how to write fairly basic code using LLMs in a way that is not actually solving problems any quicker or more effectively but is doing it in a way that they see as "more modern".

Ironically I don't think software engineering has progressed much at all since vibe coding got fashionable. Real, meaningful engineering advances are being drowned out by the AI coding religion.

[ehnto]

The front page of HN has definitely be sparse on actual software accomplishments, it's been a lot of meta-level chatter on AI. Obviously a very important technology, but also just a tool, a means to an end. I am not seeing much progress in other fields making it to HN regardless of what tool they used. I hope it's happening, and just being drowned out.

[hgoel]

Agreed, I see a lot of the type of people you're describing on here.

[discreteevent]

That type are called "engineers". I used to interview them and I didn't care if they knew anything about the business.

Large codebases are the most complex things we have ever worked on and can easily become unmaintainable. I wanted people who really cared about code quality and consistency in order to offset this.

I think that it would be even more important to hire people like that now and even though we will need less programmers there were never enough of that type to go around anyway.