4 ms·

I think people are more impressed than they should be because of a misconception about what programmers really do. For most big software projects the bottlenec

I think people are more impressed than they should be because of a misconception about what programmers really do. For most big software projects the bottleneck is not writing code and test boilerplate that runs correctly locally. Which of course LLMs can do reasonably well. Most time is spent on design, on integrations with other internal services, scaling concerns, and reasoning about other things that these models can't really reason about yet. I'm obvious impressed that these models can generate simple client/server websites and generate code to solve competitive programming problems. But I don't think they've "solved" software engineering; they've only solved "what you boss thinks software engineering is".

AnimalMuppet 4y ago
> But I don't think they've "solved" software engineering; they've only solved "what you boss thinks software engineering is". That's still bad, though, because your boss makes hiring and salary decisions. Maybe in the end it's a kind of "great filter" - companies and bosses that can't tell the difference don't survive. But a lot of good programmers can get fired before the clueless bosses die off...
- testtesttesst 4y ago
  That's capitalism. After you get fired, if you can still produce useful labor there will ideally be more employers waiting; you can freelance if your visa situation allows it; or you can start your own business and outcompete. The cause of the inefficiency and "great filter" you're describing is the labor protectionism currently in the U.S. Theoretically a good programmer has arbitrage via their skills and expertise. If you can get things done people will pay you for it, assuming you're allowed to work (in the U.S., EU, etc.).
  - sidlls 4y ago
    Theoretically rarely beats ignorance in practice though. Software engineers in aggregate think and act like they’re working in a meritocracy (we aren’t) and this gives even more leverage to management and owners. It’s one of the big reasons engineer salaries right now aren’t as high as they otherwise would be.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tester457 4y ago
      > Software engineers in aggregate think and act like they’re working in a meritocracy (we aren’t) What is it really? Just an industry plagued by nepotism?
noobermin 4y ago
>they've only solved "what you boss thinks software engineering is". Which is why bosses are excited but engineers are not, because subpar LLMs will be used to justify firing actual engineers and replace them with fresh college grads tasked to work with a code bot, because the bosses fundamentally think that is enough.
- testtesttesst 4y ago
  Then those projects will fail and they won't do that anymore. Or they'll succeed and engineers will have to find harder problems to solve. If a new grad + LLM can do task X about as well as an experienced engineer can, then the experienced engineer will have to find other harder problems to solve. Personally I think labor efficiency is good; why waste your labor on easy/solved problems?
  - foogazi 4y ago
    > then the experienced engineer will have to find other harder problems to solve. The experienced engineer also gets an LLM though
    - testtesttesst 4y ago
      > The experienced engineer also gets an LLM though Say experienced engineer Edna was working on a project and the new grad Nelson replaced her because he was cheaper and about as good if both have LLMs, i.e., Edna + LLM ≈ Nelson + LLM even though Edna >> Nelson. So Edna needs to find a project to work on where LLMs don't equalize her arbitrage, i.e., Edna + LLM >> Nelson + LLM and Nelson needs one where Nelson + LLM >> LLM.
      - noobermin 4y ago
        My contention is "how do you determine if someone was 'as good'?" Very likely the people in the position to make a decision will not be qualified enough to even make that decision. IF (and really only if) such a determination is possible, then sure, I agree, find harder problems etc, but I assert that people will not make that determination (which is close to impossible to make) well, if at all because that wasn't the point in the first place.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

> But I don't think they've "solved" software engineering; they've only solved "what you boss thinks software engineering is". That's still bad, though, because your boss makes hiring and salary decisions. Maybe in the end it's a kind of "great filter" - companies and bosses that can't tell the difference don't survive. But a lot of good programmers can get fired before the clueless bosses die off...

testtesttesst 4y ago
That's capitalism. After you get fired, if you can still produce useful labor there will ideally be more employers waiting; you can freelance if your visa situation allows it; or you can start your own business and outcompete. The cause of the inefficiency and "great filter" you're describing is the labor protectionism currently in the U.S. Theoretically a good programmer has arbitrage via their skills and expertise. If you can get things done people will pay you for it, assuming you're allowed to work (in the U.S., EU, etc.).
- sidlls 4y ago
  Theoretically rarely beats ignorance in practice though. Software engineers in aggregate think and act like they’re working in a meritocracy (we aren’t) and this gives even more leverage to management and owners. It’s one of the big reasons engineer salaries right now aren’t as high as they otherwise would be.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tester457 4y ago
    > Software engineers in aggregate think and act like they’re working in a meritocracy (we aren’t) What is it really? Just an industry plagued by nepotism?

noobermin 4y ago

>they've only solved "what you boss thinks software engineering is". Which is why bosses are excited but engineers are not, because subpar LLMs will be used to justify firing actual engineers and replace them with fresh college grads tasked to work with a code bot, because the bosses fundamentally think that is enough.

testtesttesst 4y ago
Then those projects will fail and they won't do that anymore. Or they'll succeed and engineers will have to find harder problems to solve. If a new grad + LLM can do task X about as well as an experienced engineer can, then the experienced engineer will have to find other harder problems to solve. Personally I think labor efficiency is good; why waste your labor on easy/solved problems?
- foogazi 4y ago
  > then the experienced engineer will have to find other harder problems to solve. The experienced engineer also gets an LLM though
  - testtesttesst 4y ago
    > The experienced engineer also gets an LLM though Say experienced engineer Edna was working on a project and the new grad Nelson replaced her because he was cheaper and about as good if both have LLMs, i.e., Edna + LLM ≈ Nelson + LLM even though Edna >> Nelson. So Edna needs to find a project to work on where LLMs don't equalize her arbitrage, i.e., Edna + LLM >> Nelson + LLM and Nelson needs one where Nelson + LLM >> LLM.
    - noobermin 4y ago
      My contention is "how do you determine if someone was 'as good'?" Very likely the people in the position to make a decision will not be qualified enough to even make that decision. IF (and really only if) such a determination is possible, then sure, I agree, find harder problems etc, but I assert that people will not make that determination (which is close to impossible to make) well, if at all because that wasn't the point in the first place.