5 ms·

Algorithms are coming for their jobs, workers are teaching themselves algorithms

64 points by wallflower 8y ago

quizme2000 8y ago
It's an interesting tidbit about Malware-bytes training QA staff via Udemy. Consumer Software QA is tedious, repetitive, and soul crashing task for many a entry level tech workers. A novel idea to actually encourage staff to "upskill" in position instead of having a vendor provide yet another product to replace company talent. I almost skipped this read because I thought it was another FUD article about technology being disruptive because the title is awful and not accurate.
- sjg007 8y ago
  One goal in testing is to automate yourself out of a job. That and to be sure you can test everything appropriately!
tabtab 8y ago
I'd like to see more specific & detailed examples.
mc32 8y ago
There are some things where you can climb up the value chain, such as this example; however, it’s naive to think that most things which can be automated would fall into this category. It’s delisional to think so.
- Florin_Andrei 8y ago
  In the long run, AI will keep getting better and will also climb up the value chain. It shall be an interesting race to watch, assuming you could do so from a third person perspective.
kitotik 8y ago
This reads very much like a Udemy PR piece. I’ve seen these types of moves several times in the enterprise and it seems to me an HR covering-its-ass move so that they can fire people with cause for not having the skills to perform a job role that changed under the employees feet. This is at least 10x cheaper than losing unemployment claims. “Hey, we gave them access to some training videos and they just didn’t seem to be able to keep up”
- atomical 8y ago
  Being incompetent isn't going to prevent someone from getting unemployment.
  - CamTin 8y ago
    Yeah, you just need a pulse to be denied.
    - atomical 8y ago
      What do you mean? It's very easy for someone to get unemployment.
- dgemm 8y ago
  > Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms. Always a good read: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html
SmooL 8y ago
"With their newfound programming knowledge, they're able to identify errors in the company's codebase and contribute to a solution with the company's developers." Nope, sorry. There's no way that a couple of online Udemy courses suddenly qualifies you to touch our codebase.
- rahimnathwani 8y ago
  Even read-only?
  - thankthunk 8y ago
    Of course. Especially when proprietary software/intellectual property is involved. I don't know of any tech shop that makes the source code available to the QA. QA is normally a "black box" operation. It exists to test/use the software as your client/user would. So QA just tests the software/app and then signs off on it or if there is an error, they update the bug tracker and assign it to the relevant dev.
    - rahimnathwani 8y ago
      > Of course. Especially when proprietary > software/intellectual property is involved. I'm not sure how this is relevant. Surely, the more qualified someone is in software engineering, the more likely they will be able to make nefarious use of the stolen code. > I don't know of any tech shop that makes > the source code available to the QA. Sure, that's fair. My point wasn't about QA specifically, but about GP's point about not letting someone who has (only) completed a couple of Udemy courses touch the code. That doesn't seem warranted, and I've personally seen people who have never written production code review someone else's code and find where it didn't match their idea of what it should do. I wish it were more common, but it requires both motivation (on the part of domain experts / non-SWEs) and trust (on the part of the tech folks).
      - thankthunk 8y ago
        > I'm not sure how this is relevant. It's relevant because you want to limit the number of people who have access to your proprietary software. It's pretty straightforward. > the more likely they will be able to make nefarious use of the stolen code. The point is to limit the "surface area". There is absolutely no reason for QA to have access to the source code. Giving them access is simply opening up another security vulnerability. It's not even using the code for nefarious purposes. People can sell the code for money. > and I've personally seen people who have never written production code review someone else's code and find where it didn't match their idea of what it should do. What? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you talking about tech leads or managers? Who reviews code who has never written code? That's like saying someone who never learned chinese critiquing chinese literature. Makes absolutely no sense. > I wish it were more common, but it requires both motivation (on the part of domain experts / non-SWEs) and trust (on the part of the tech folks). It makes no sense to do so. Especially in terms of security. Especially when proprietary software is involved.

64 points by wallflower 8y ago

quizme2000 8y ago

It's an interesting tidbit about Malware-bytes training QA staff via Udemy. Consumer Software QA is tedious, repetitive, and soul crashing task for many a entry level tech workers. A novel idea to actually encourage staff to "upskill" in position instead of having a vendor provide yet another product to replace company talent. I almost skipped this read because I thought it was another FUD article about technology being disruptive because the title is awful and not accurate.

sjg007 8y ago
One goal in testing is to automate yourself out of a job. That and to be sure you can test everything appropriately!

tabtab 8y ago

I'd like to see more specific & detailed examples.

mc32 8y ago

There are some things where you can climb up the value chain, such as this example; however, it’s naive to think that most things which can be automated would fall into this category. It’s delisional to think so.

Florin_Andrei 8y ago
In the long run, AI will keep getting better and will also climb up the value chain. It shall be an interesting race to watch, assuming you could do so from a third person perspective.

kitotik 8y ago

This reads very much like a Udemy PR piece. I’ve seen these types of moves several times in the enterprise and it seems to me an HR covering-its-ass move so that they can fire people with cause for not having the skills to perform a job role that changed under the employees feet. This is at least 10x cheaper than losing unemployment claims. “Hey, we gave them access to some training videos and they just didn’t seem to be able to keep up”

atomical 8y ago
Being incompetent isn't going to prevent someone from getting unemployment.
- CamTin 8y ago
  Yeah, you just need a pulse to be denied.
  - atomical 8y ago
    What do you mean? It's very easy for someone to get unemployment.
dgemm 8y ago
> Of the stories you read in traditional media that aren't about politics, crimes, or disasters, more than half probably come from PR firms. Always a good read: http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html

SmooL 8y ago

"With their newfound programming knowledge, they're able to identify errors in the company's codebase and contribute to a solution with the company's developers." Nope, sorry. There's no way that a couple of online Udemy courses suddenly qualifies you to touch our codebase.

rahimnathwani 8y ago
Even read-only?
- thankthunk 8y ago
  Of course. Especially when proprietary software/intellectual property is involved. I don't know of any tech shop that makes the source code available to the QA. QA is normally a "black box" operation. It exists to test/use the software as your client/user would. So QA just tests the software/app and then signs off on it or if there is an error, they update the bug tracker and assign it to the relevant dev.
  - rahimnathwani 8y ago
    > Of course. Especially when proprietary > software/intellectual property is involved. I'm not sure how this is relevant. Surely, the more qualified someone is in software engineering, the more likely they will be able to make nefarious use of the stolen code. > I don't know of any tech shop that makes > the source code available to the QA. Sure, that's fair. My point wasn't about QA specifically, but about GP's point about not letting someone who has (only) completed a couple of Udemy courses touch the code. That doesn't seem warranted, and I've personally seen people who have never written production code review someone else's code and find where it didn't match their idea of what it should do. I wish it were more common, but it requires both motivation (on the part of domain experts / non-SWEs) and trust (on the part of the tech folks).
    - thankthunk 8y ago
      > I'm not sure how this is relevant. It's relevant because you want to limit the number of people who have access to your proprietary software. It's pretty straightforward. > the more likely they will be able to make nefarious use of the stolen code. The point is to limit the "surface area". There is absolutely no reason for QA to have access to the source code. Giving them access is simply opening up another security vulnerability. It's not even using the code for nefarious purposes. People can sell the code for money. > and I've personally seen people who have never written production code review someone else's code and find where it didn't match their idea of what it should do. What? That makes absolutely no sense. Are you talking about tech leads or managers? Who reviews code who has never written code? That's like saying someone who never learned chinese critiquing chinese literature. Makes absolutely no sense. > I wish it were more common, but it requires both motivation (on the part of domain experts / non-SWEs) and trust (on the part of the tech folks). It makes no sense to do so. Especially in terms of security. Especially when proprietary software is involved.