4 ms·

I sometimes read these and wonder if I need to retrain. At my age, I’ll struggle to get a job at a similar level in a new industry. And then I remember that th

I sometimes read these and wonder if I need to retrain. At my age, I’ll struggle to get a job at a similar level in a new industry. And then I remember that the thing I bring to the table is the ability to turn domain knowledge into code. Being able to do competitive coding challenges is impressive, but a very large segment of software engineering is about eliciting what the squishy humans in management actually want, putting it into code, and discovering as quickly as possible that it’s not what they really wanted after all. It’s going to take a sufficiently long time for AI to take over management that I don’t think oldies like me need to worry too much.

atleta 5y ago
The thing is that we don't know. What I also have been seeing for a while (like for at least for a decade) that whatever profession seemed to be in danger, whichever profession came out on top on (guess) lists like "these will be replaced by AI soon", each and every one of them thought that it can't happen to them and they all had (and continue to have) explanations, usually involving how that jobs needs human ingenuity. (Unlike all the others, of course :) ) Now completely I agree with you that a significant part of our job is understanding and structuring the problem, but I'm not sure it can't be done in another way. We usually get taking in when we think about what machines will be able to do by thinking that just because we use intelligence (general/human intelligence) to solve the task it means that it's a requirement. Think chess. Or even calculating (as in, with numbers). Or go. Etc. The funny thing is that we don't know, until someone does it. I've been thinking for a while that a lot of what I do could be done by a chat bot. Asking clarification questions. Of course, I do have a lot of background knowledge and that's how I can come up with those questions, but that knowledge is probably easy to acquire from the internet and then use it as training data. (Just like we have an awful lot of code available, we have a lot of problem descriptions, questions, comments and some requirement specifications/user guides.) The hard part would probably be not what we have learned as a software developer, but the things we have learned while we were small kids and also the things that we have learned since, on the side. I.e. being a reasonable person. Understanding what people usually do and want. So the shared context. But I'm not sure it's needed that much. So yeah, I can imagine a service that will talk to a user about what kind of app they want (first just simpler web sites, web shops, later more and more complicated ones) and then just show them "here is what it does and how it works". And then you can say what you'd like to be changed. The color or placement of a button (earlier versions) or even the association type between entities (oh, but a user can have multiple shipping addresses).
- GuB-42 5y ago
  I think programmers are relatively "safe" from AI for the simple reason they are the ones who talk to AI. The job of programmers is to have machines do stuff so that humans don't have to, and of course, they do it for themselves too. Scripts, libraries, compilers, they are just tools to avoid flipping bits by hand. If something like copilot is not embraced by all programmers, it is that it is often less than helpful, and even then, some have adopted it. If we have super-advanced AI that can have a high level understanding of a problem and writes the app for you, then it is not much more than a super-compiler, and there will be programmers who will tell the super-compiler what to do, think of it as a new, super high level programming language. The job will evolve, but there will always be someone who tells the computer what to do. And if there is no one needed to tell the computer what to do, that's what some people call "the singularity". Programming, or its evolution will probably be the last technical job. Social jobs may continue further, simply because humans like humans because they are human. Maybe the oldest profession will also be the last profession.
  - elisbce 5y ago
    Your logic is completely flawed. If there is a super AI with real intelligence that understands problems and codes it up for you, why wouldn't it be possible to go one step further and solve problems on its own? Why do you think that a human programmer has to feed a problem statement to the AI for it to work?
    - GuB-42 5y ago
      It is what I meant by "the singularity". AIs that are so intelligent that they don't need humans, including when it comes to building better AIs. The idea is that they get in a runaway self-improving cycle and what they do after that and the place of humanity is left to the imagination. I don't believe in the singularity, but if we get to the point where AIs don't need human programmers anymore, things are going to get... interesting.
  - p1esk 5y ago
    there will always be someone who tells the computer what to do Until the computer starts telling people what to do
iab 5y ago
I think a good yardstick for this is something that is generative; so, for instance, can the system generate a good programming challenge question? This is still a no.
jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago
AI might take over management quicker than you think. If the objective is to get the rocket into space, AI might know the requirements better than humans at this rate.
wantsanagent 5y ago
Have you tried out Github Copilot yet? I find it super interesting. It turns writing code into more of a write some comments, let it write the code, review the code, realize what I actually need it to do, revise the comments, then tighten up the generated code. Most surprisingly I can quickly tackle domains that require libraries I don't know because a combination of code generation and IDE hinting means I can write comments and pseudo code and the tool then provides at least a first pass best method to use. Can't say if I write better code with Copilot but it's worth experiencing!
- OOPMan 5y ago
  I've been playing with Copilot as well. It's very good at handling boilerplate and making contextual suggestions. I don't see it eating my cake, but it's definitely a very useful tool for saving time.
nobody0 5y ago
I agree with you on this, since we humans want things in a vague form, and it's still very hard for computers to infer insights from those ambiguous requirements. Not very easy to do that by taking derivatives of function compositions.
nopinsight 5y ago
Although most good developers will likely keep their jobs for the foreseeable future, the relative importance, and payoff, of different skills might change. Lower-level coding could become more and more automated, raising the values and wages of complementary skills such as requirements elicitation and understanding of business impact from technological decisions. [1] Some of these, however, can be done by businesspeople who know how to think and express their ideas precisely, such that a neural model can turn them into a decent draft of code. (These days, many more youths learn to code before going into other fields. They have training for thinking precisely.) There can be fewer job opportunities for some groups of developers. Thus, a hedge against possible job loss is still required. Owning substantial equity in a company/startup and other assets would be one good strategy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_good

atleta 5y ago

The thing is that we don't know. What I also have been seeing for a while (like for at least for a decade) that whatever profession seemed to be in danger, whichever profession came out on top on (guess) lists like "these will be replaced by AI soon", each and every one of them thought that it can't happen to them and they all had (and continue to have) explanations, usually involving how that jobs needs human ingenuity. (Unlike all the others, of course :) ) Now completely I agree with you that a significant part of our job is understanding and structuring the problem, but I'm not sure it can't be done in another way. We usually get taking in when we think about what machines will be able to do by thinking that just because we use intelligence (general/human intelligence) to solve the task it means that it's a requirement. Think chess. Or even calculating (as in, with numbers). Or go. Etc. The funny thing is that we don't know, until someone does it. I've been thinking for a while that a lot of what I do could be done by a chat bot. Asking clarification questions. Of course, I do have a lot of background knowledge and that's how I can come up with those questions, but that knowledge is probably easy to acquire from the internet and then use it as training data. (Just like we have an awful lot of code available, we have a lot of problem descriptions, questions, comments and some requirement specifications/user guides.) The hard part would probably be not what we have learned as a software developer, but the things we have learned while we were small kids and also the things that we have learned since, on the side. I.e. being a reasonable person. Understanding what people usually do and want. So the shared context. But I'm not sure it's needed that much. So yeah, I can imagine a service that will talk to a user about what kind of app they want (first just simpler web sites, web shops, later more and more complicated ones) and then just show them "here is what it does and how it works". And then you can say what you'd like to be changed. The color or placement of a button (earlier versions) or even the association type between entities (oh, but a user can have multiple shipping addresses).

GuB-42 5y ago
I think programmers are relatively "safe" from AI for the simple reason they are the ones who talk to AI. The job of programmers is to have machines do stuff so that humans don't have to, and of course, they do it for themselves too. Scripts, libraries, compilers, they are just tools to avoid flipping bits by hand. If something like copilot is not embraced by all programmers, it is that it is often less than helpful, and even then, some have adopted it. If we have super-advanced AI that can have a high level understanding of a problem and writes the app for you, then it is not much more than a super-compiler, and there will be programmers who will tell the super-compiler what to do, think of it as a new, super high level programming language. The job will evolve, but there will always be someone who tells the computer what to do. And if there is no one needed to tell the computer what to do, that's what some people call "the singularity". Programming, or its evolution will probably be the last technical job. Social jobs may continue further, simply because humans like humans because they are human. Maybe the oldest profession will also be the last profession.
- elisbce 5y ago
  Your logic is completely flawed. If there is a super AI with real intelligence that understands problems and codes it up for you, why wouldn't it be possible to go one step further and solve problems on its own? Why do you think that a human programmer has to feed a problem statement to the AI for it to work?
  - GuB-42 5y ago
    It is what I meant by "the singularity". AIs that are so intelligent that they don't need humans, including when it comes to building better AIs. The idea is that they get in a runaway self-improving cycle and what they do after that and the place of humanity is left to the imagination. I don't believe in the singularity, but if we get to the point where AIs don't need human programmers anymore, things are going to get... interesting.
- p1esk 5y ago
  there will always be someone who tells the computer what to do Until the computer starts telling people what to do

iab 5y ago

I think a good yardstick for this is something that is generative; so, for instance, can the system generate a good programming challenge question? This is still a no.

jsiaajdsdaa 5y ago

AI might take over management quicker than you think. If the objective is to get the rocket into space, AI might know the requirements better than humans at this rate.

wantsanagent 5y ago

Have you tried out Github Copilot yet? I find it super interesting. It turns writing code into more of a write some comments, let it write the code, review the code, realize what I actually need it to do, revise the comments, then tighten up the generated code. Most surprisingly I can quickly tackle domains that require libraries I don't know because a combination of code generation and IDE hinting means I can write comments and pseudo code and the tool then provides at least a first pass best method to use. Can't say if I write better code with Copilot but it's worth experiencing!

OOPMan 5y ago
I've been playing with Copilot as well. It's very good at handling boilerplate and making contextual suggestions. I don't see it eating my cake, but it's definitely a very useful tool for saving time.

nobody0 5y ago

I agree with you on this, since we humans want things in a vague form, and it's still very hard for computers to infer insights from those ambiguous requirements. Not very easy to do that by taking derivatives of function compositions.

nopinsight 5y ago

Although most good developers will likely keep their jobs for the foreseeable future, the relative importance, and payoff, of different skills might change. Lower-level coding could become more and more automated, raising the values and wages of complementary skills such as requirements elicitation and understanding of business impact from technological decisions. [1] Some of these, however, can be done by businesspeople who know how to think and express their ideas precisely, such that a neural model can turn them into a decent draft of code. (These days, many more youths learn to code before going into other fields. They have training for thinking precisely.) There can be fewer job opportunities for some groups of developers. Thus, a hedge against possible job loss is still required. Owning substantial equity in a company/startup and other assets would be one good strategy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complementary_good