Programming

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works 16 points 1 week ago (8 children)

Just wanted to offer a counter argument to this: I’ve been in software for a few decades and while things are changing fast, and I absolutely don’t program by hand basically ever, I still draw on my experience extensively, every day, when designing systems and reviewing code.

My current fear is that with the drop in college CS enrollment and the lack of opportunities for junior folks to get up to speed via coding by hand, we will eventually reach a point where most of the senior folks have retired, and the remainder of the engineers won’t have the deep understanding that I and others have. This will create a shortage of experienced people who can actually solve real architectural problems and review code accurately.

So I think there is still opportunity for someone who is motivated enough to become that “future me.” Will there be fewer of those positions available? Most likely. But I believe there will also be a huge shortage of competent candidates.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] jtrek@startrek.website 8 points 1 week ago

It definitely seems like we're setting ourselves up for a dystopia, where no one knows how to do software anymore. Like the time machine or Idiocracy. Management just wants short term gains, and they don't care if there's no one around in 10 years with any experience

parent

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago (2 children)

This will create a shortage of experienced people who can actually solve real architectural problems and review code accurately.

This is also my current "most likely" scenario. Bob Martin (of Clean Code fame) doesn't read or write code any longer. But he has the luxury of drawing on decades of coding and architecture experience to direct LLMs to do the right thing.

There has been an increase in the number of open positions for senior devs, and a decrease in the number of open positions for junior devs. Median senior salary is $240k. These both indicate value to coding and architectural knowledge.

As seniors retire and quit (a lot of them don't really care for the AI job), we're going to end up with a skills gap.

I teach a couple SE courses at our university and I'm revamping them as we speak to aim higher toward that senior dev level. But it's not easy to replicate 3-5 years of on-the-job experience in 2 quarters.

In China, the gap is being made up for by employers (kinda like it's historically been). I know one thing for sure about the US, though: we'll make corrections when our backs are against the wall and not a moment before. :)

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

toward that senior dev level. But it’s not easy to replicate 3-5 years of on-the-job experience

5 years on the job doesn't remotely qualify you as a senior dev.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago

Well, depends on the person. And I think the era--I'm getting the impression what it takes to be a dev in 2020 isn't quite the same as what it took in the 90s. But in any case, I said toward the senior dev level in that timeframe.

parent

[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social 0 points 1 week ago (3 children)

I still draw on my experience extensively, every day, when designing systems and reviewing code.

How long do you think you'll be needed to do that?

The models are coming for your job. They'll get good enough to replace you, and sooner than you think. If you think you're safe, you're delusional.

And in the long run, nobody will need your finely-honed skills or mine. Young professionals who start a career in software engineering today are basically signing up for long-term unemployement or burger-flipping.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 week ago (2 children)

How long do you think you'll be needed to do that?

I have yet to see much evidence that indicates that I won’t be needed indefinitely.

The models are coming for your job.

Gonna need some citations on this, chief. I don’t necessarily disagree, but proper architecture and high level analysis and design, especially of large existing systems, is something that LLMs have always been quite bad at, and I don’t think that’s going to change anytime soon. But I know the state of the art is hard to follow, so if you have any new developments to share I’d love to look at them.

They'll get good enough to replace you, and sooner than you think. If you think you're safe, you're delusional.

I have never thought I was “safe” in this industry, going back 30 years. But I think there’s 1) a lot of questionable fear mongering going around, and 2) a very clear possibility of a talent shortage if we keep going on this trajectory.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] ExtremeDullard@piefed.social -4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 child)

I have yet to see much evidence that indicates that I won’t be needed indefinitely.

I've seen models going from pissing shitty 10-liners that didn't compile to reworking entire projects halfway convincingly in only a few short years. I see no reason why they won't get good enough to do that well enough to render your senior software architect ass obsolete in a few more.

"Today’s AI is the worst you’ll ever use" is correct. You might get some respite for a few more years when the AI bubble bursts and we go back to doing shit ourselves for a while. But the technology isn't going away. And bad luck for us, it's almost perfectly suited to replace software engineers, of all jobs.

If you haven't seen this, you've been living under a massive rock. It's clear as day.

lot of questionable fear mongering going around

Well, I will say this: all I'm saying is that OUR jobs as WE know them are gone. They either don't exist anymore, or they're on the verge of disappearing. What I'm emphatically NOT saying is that it's wrong: it's progress I guess. We're just the latest round of professionals whose profession has been rendered obsolete by technology.

I do worry that so many professions are in the crosshairs that it'll basically break society though, because the changes are so radical and so quick.

a very clear possibility of a talent shortage if we keep going on this trajectory.

It's not a possibility, it's a certainty. And it won't matter: again, I'm 100% convinced the machines will do a better job than you or me very soon.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TootGuitar@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago*

Ok. I’m not convinced of most of what you say, certainly not to the level of certainty that you have. I’d still love to see actual evidence of what you’re saying. Extrapolating 3 years of progress, especially when that progress is rapid, out to infinity is a classic mistake. Do you really think that, for example, the progress that models have made in 2026 is anywhere near the level that they made from, say, Jan 2024 to Nov 2024?

I do agree that things have changed and that maybe it is progress.

parent

[–] martti@suppo.fi [S] 2 points 1 week ago

Wow, AI-hyperoptimized CEOs reached the bosses of programming. And also corporate programmers would use proprietary shit like reddit. Im here for the idea!

parent

[–] entwine@programming.dev 2 points 1 week ago

So basically, this guy is wrong.

I've had this (controversial) theory for a while that I've yet to see proven wrong. Before AI, it's basically been known that most programmers "age out" of the craft, because it's really difficult to keep up with it forever, and most people in middle of the bell curve simply can't do it. Big tech used to get sued for ageism all the time, because they would do shit like only promote or hire young people (which is illegal).

The aging millennials of today were the young rockstar ninja programmers of the past 2~3 decades, but now most of them are getting too old to keep up. That's why you see AI psychosis hitting the older coders harder than anyone else, since it provides a convenient way to not face the realities of aging. It's easier to think you can still be a rockstar by "pivoting" to AI, than it is to admit that you don't have the energy or motivation to keep your skills sharp. Tim Sweeney (and to a certain extent John Carmack) come to mind as high profile examples of this.

A pre-AI version of this is pivoting to management. That's what pretty much everyone does, and it's common to find people like that who haven't written a line of code themselves in years. But I guess becoming an AI cheerleader is easier to do, and the number of open management roles certainly isn't big enough for everyone.