3 ms·

Carmack has a point, we should focus on the problem we're solving and the value we're delivering. It can be hard for programmers to get this sometimes, but it w

by jmfldn 4y ago

Carmack has a point, we should focus on the problem we're solving and the value we're delivering. It can be hard for programmers to get this sometimes, but it will make you much better at your job now, it's not just about future-proofing. That said, I love technology and delivering it through code, so I would struggle on a personal level in this future unless there were interesting technical roles left to do. I have no interest in being a product person. I'm fundamentally motivated by a passion for code and tech. As for when this fully automated future arrives, I don't know, but I don't think LLMs get you there. More and more boilerplate code, and even novel code, might get written by things like Codex. However, all the messy details of real world systems solving fairly intractable problems need something more akin to, if not AGI, then another type of AI. I might be wrong, I just don't feel that threatened by ChatGPT / Copilot based on what I've seen. It's an amazing technology but weirdly underwhelming for my job. Copilot etc will change things, but replace us? No. Of course, something else may be just around the corner so I'm not complacent.

matwood 4y ago
> Carmack has a point, we should focus on the problem we're solving and the value we're delivering. When I was younger every programming job was supposedly about to be outsourced. I did exactly what Carmack suggested, and it worked out well for me. I think it’s a great general strategy for working for a long time, but not ideal for someone who wanted to pass leetcode style interviews at a top tech company. For example, would anyone at my google tech interview care that I’m comfortable with a companies financials, managing P&Ls, margins, etc? No, just how fast I can write a sort or whatever.
_-____-_ 4y ago
I'm not sure "product person" was the right choice of words for what Carmack is trying to say. It seems to me that the distinction he's drawing between managers and programmers is one of precise communication skills. The most talented programmers (and the best product managers - which is maybe what he was getting at) are talented because of their ability to communicate precisely - currently, that means communicating between stakeholders and computers. In the future, it will mean communicating precisely between stakeholders and AI tools. But the fundamental demand for people with a knack for precise communication is not going anywhere.

by jmfldn 4y ago

matwood 4y ago

> Carmack has a point, we should focus on the problem we're solving and the value we're delivering. When I was younger every programming job was supposedly about to be outsourced. I did exactly what Carmack suggested, and it worked out well for me. I think it’s a great general strategy for working for a long time, but not ideal for someone who wanted to pass leetcode style interviews at a top tech company. For example, would anyone at my google tech interview care that I’m comfortable with a companies financials, managing P&Ls, margins, etc? No, just how fast I can write a sort or whatever.

_-____-_ 4y ago

I'm not sure "product person" was the right choice of words for what Carmack is trying to say. It seems to me that the distinction he's drawing between managers and programmers is one of precise communication skills. The most talented programmers (and the best product managers - which is maybe what he was getting at) are talented because of their ability to communicate precisely - currently, that means communicating between stakeholders and computers. In the future, it will mean communicating precisely between stakeholders and AI tools. But the fundamental demand for people with a knack for precise communication is not going anywhere.