4 ms·

How to survive in an AI world? Shift your mindset from “I write code” to “I deliver value”. Now instead of AI replacing you, it’s helping you get more done (in

by Swizec 3y ago

How to survive in an AI world? Shift your mindset from “I write code” to “I deliver value”. Now instead of AI replacing you, it’s helping you get more done (in theory). Everyone wins. Staking your career on being a pair of hired hands that executes somebody else’s exacting specifications was always a long-term losing proposition. And we are very very far away from AI being able to ask the right questions to help business stakeholders and customers clearly express what they need.

varispeed 3y ago
I also find it bizarre that so many people feel precious about the code. They have too much ego attached to what they type in and the AI kind of make them feel insecure. I couldn't care less if I write the code, the AI or someone I told to write it. What matters is the value it provides.
- laputan_machine 3y ago
  > I also find it bizarre that so many people feel precious about the code. Would you find it bizarre that a joiner feels precious about not just the cabinet they made (value), but how they made it? The joints they used, the process they went through, the wood (i.e., the code)? A plumber, electrician, architect, designer, programmer -- we take pride in our skills. Craftmanship is a virtue, not a vice.
  - ramesh31 3y ago
    >Craftmanship is a virtue, not a vice. Exactly, ultimately we are craftsmen, not artisans. They are two very distinct things. The difference being that the value of our output is directly tied to its' functional utility, not any sense of aesthetic or artistic expression. You can take pride in the means used to achieve an end, but they ultimately must be superseded by more efficient techniques or you just become an artisan using traditional tools, and not a craftsman who uses the industry standard.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > Exactly, ultimately we are craftsmen, not artisans. They are two very distinct things. The difference being that the value of our output is directly tied to its' functional utility, not any sense of aesthetic or artistic expression. That's the usual definition of an artisan as opposed to an artist. (Artisan vs. craftsman is a fuzzier distinction.)
      - ramesh31 3y ago
        An artisan uses artistic techniques and their own intuitive judgement to produce a practical good. Think bakers. No one would be upset that their local bakery was using tools and techniques from a thousand years ago to make their bread. But a carpenter, for example, is a craftsman. He may take an aesthetic pride in the finished result of his work, but it must match all technical specifications and building codes. And the customer would be pretty upset to see them using wood planes and hand saws to frame their house.
    - randcraw 3y ago
      Craftsmen are individual contributors. When you coordinate others, you're no longer an IC, you're a foreman, a boss. Coding with LLMs is about managing the contributions of other ICs. It's no different from coordinating low-level human coders who simply implement the design that was given them. If that's the kind of 'craftsmanship' you enjoy, great. To me, this new model of 'bionic coding' feels a lot like factory work, where my job is to keep my team from falling behind the assembly line. BTW, I've worked factory lines as both IC and foreman. In either role, that life sucks.
      - ukuina 3y ago
        Not everyone can be a software architect or technical lead, though. Is the pyramid going to grow as AI pushes the base abstraction of work higher?
  - varispeed 3y ago
    Your analogy suggests that the code is the final product, akin to a cabinet or a building, something tangible that can be appreciated for its craftsmanship. In some instances, like open-source software, the code might indeed be viewed this way, but in most cases, it's not the code itself that end-users appreciate, it's the functionality it provides. To refine your analogy, the code isn't the cabinet - it's more like the blueprint or the process used to create the cabinet. The user doesn't care if a hand saw or a power saw was used, as long as the cabinet is well-crafted and functional. Similarly, end-users of software don't see or appreciate the code. They only interact with the user interface and the functionality it provides. As a result, being "precious" about the code can sometimes be more about personal ego and less about delivering value to the end-user. In terms of pride in craftsmanship, of course, it's crucial to take pride in one's work. However, this doesn't mean that one should be resistant to using better tools when they become available. The introduction of AI in coding doesn't negate craftsmanship - instead, it's an opportunity to refine it and make it more efficient. It's like a carpenter transitioning from using manual tools to using power tools. The carpenter still needs knowledge, skill, and an eye for detail to create a good product, but now they can do it more efficiently.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - briHass 3y ago
      This is perhaps true for shrink-wrapped software (in so far as that still exists), but for B2B SaaS products, the ability to easily maintain and enhance the codebase is vital to the long-term success of the product. Maybe it won't actually matter, because if AI generates a 5MM line ball-of-mud, it will be able to easily add features later due to the code being styled in alignment with its training, or maybe the context size limitations will allow future systems to digest the entire thing. It could end up being like coding in a very high-level language: who cares what crazy bytecode is kicked out as long as it performs within expectations.
- currant_ 3y ago
  I feel like there’s probably an unspoken division between people who enjoy building systems (providing value in your terms) and people who enjoy more of the detailed coding. The later group had a good thing going where they were extremely well compensated for doing an activity they enjoyed, so I think it make sense for them to be a bit distressed.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  When assemblers were introduced, there were programmers who complained, because it ruined the intimacy of their communication with the computer that they had with octal. They meant it, too. Noticing that the "or" instruction differed only by one bit from the "subtract" instruction told you something about the probable inner workings of the CPU. It just turned out that it didn't matter - knowing that level of detail didn't help you write code nearly as much as it helped to be able to say "OR" instead of "032".
sublinear 3y ago
> AI being able to ask the right questions to help business stakeholders and customers clearly express what they need This is where the biggest impact will be: better requirements. I see no effect on writing code because humans already know how to write code just fine, but so many of the people running the business are absolutely clueless as to what it needs.
sebastiennight 3y ago
I think this is hugely mistaken, just like a few months ago when people assumed that "A.I. can't ever draw faces/hands" while doing so only required a couple updates. You're seemingly claiming that: "Taking an incomplete customer brief and asking relevant questions to make it clearer and complete is the largest value in programming" And... you're not seeing the possibility that large language models, i.e. AI that is specifically built to take in fuzzy bad language and provide a neat completion/reply, is ever going to be able to say "I'm sorry Dave, but your brief is a bit unclear, could you tell me why you want 3 download buttons on the Projects screen?" I have worked with outsourced offshore coders a lot over the years and I can guarantee you that a lot of the "programmer workforce", agencies and teams, just won't ask any of those questions. They'll blindly "start the work" on terrible incomplete briefs, build something that (predictably) won't work, and charge you for this broken software. Do you really not think that putting a "Product Team Assistant" AI (which might even be doable with today's GPT-4 with a few loops and clever prompting) between the client and the coding would drastically increase/replace the value of such teams?

by Swizec 3y ago

varispeed 3y ago

I also find it bizarre that so many people feel precious about the code. They have too much ego attached to what they type in and the AI kind of make them feel insecure. I couldn't care less if I write the code, the AI or someone I told to write it. What matters is the value it provides.

laputan_machine 3y ago
> I also find it bizarre that so many people feel precious about the code. Would you find it bizarre that a joiner feels precious about not just the cabinet they made (value), but how they made it? The joints they used, the process they went through, the wood (i.e., the code)? A plumber, electrician, architect, designer, programmer -- we take pride in our skills. Craftmanship is a virtue, not a vice.
- ramesh31 3y ago
  >Craftmanship is a virtue, not a vice. Exactly, ultimately we are craftsmen, not artisans. They are two very distinct things. The difference being that the value of our output is directly tied to its' functional utility, not any sense of aesthetic or artistic expression. You can take pride in the means used to achieve an end, but they ultimately must be superseded by more efficient techniques or you just become an artisan using traditional tools, and not a craftsman who uses the industry standard.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > Exactly, ultimately we are craftsmen, not artisans. They are two very distinct things. The difference being that the value of our output is directly tied to its' functional utility, not any sense of aesthetic or artistic expression. That's the usual definition of an artisan as opposed to an artist. (Artisan vs. craftsman is a fuzzier distinction.)
    - ramesh31 3y ago
      An artisan uses artistic techniques and their own intuitive judgement to produce a practical good. Think bakers. No one would be upset that their local bakery was using tools and techniques from a thousand years ago to make their bread. But a carpenter, for example, is a craftsman. He may take an aesthetic pride in the finished result of his work, but it must match all technical specifications and building codes. And the customer would be pretty upset to see them using wood planes and hand saws to frame their house.
  - randcraw 3y ago
    Craftsmen are individual contributors. When you coordinate others, you're no longer an IC, you're a foreman, a boss. Coding with LLMs is about managing the contributions of other ICs. It's no different from coordinating low-level human coders who simply implement the design that was given them. If that's the kind of 'craftsmanship' you enjoy, great. To me, this new model of 'bionic coding' feels a lot like factory work, where my job is to keep my team from falling behind the assembly line. BTW, I've worked factory lines as both IC and foreman. In either role, that life sucks.
    - ukuina 3y ago
      Not everyone can be a software architect or technical lead, though. Is the pyramid going to grow as AI pushes the base abstraction of work higher?
- varispeed 3y ago
  Your analogy suggests that the code is the final product, akin to a cabinet or a building, something tangible that can be appreciated for its craftsmanship. In some instances, like open-source software, the code might indeed be viewed this way, but in most cases, it's not the code itself that end-users appreciate, it's the functionality it provides. To refine your analogy, the code isn't the cabinet - it's more like the blueprint or the process used to create the cabinet. The user doesn't care if a hand saw or a power saw was used, as long as the cabinet is well-crafted and functional. Similarly, end-users of software don't see or appreciate the code. They only interact with the user interface and the functionality it provides. As a result, being "precious" about the code can sometimes be more about personal ego and less about delivering value to the end-user. In terms of pride in craftsmanship, of course, it's crucial to take pride in one's work. However, this doesn't mean that one should be resistant to using better tools when they become available. The introduction of AI in coding doesn't negate craftsmanship - instead, it's an opportunity to refine it and make it more efficient. It's like a carpenter transitioning from using manual tools to using power tools. The carpenter still needs knowledge, skill, and an eye for detail to create a good product, but now they can do it more efficiently.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - briHass 3y ago
    This is perhaps true for shrink-wrapped software (in so far as that still exists), but for B2B SaaS products, the ability to easily maintain and enhance the codebase is vital to the long-term success of the product. Maybe it won't actually matter, because if AI generates a 5MM line ball-of-mud, it will be able to easily add features later due to the code being styled in alignment with its training, or maybe the context size limitations will allow future systems to digest the entire thing. It could end up being like coding in a very high-level language: who cares what crazy bytecode is kicked out as long as it performs within expectations.
currant_ 3y ago
I feel like there’s probably an unspoken division between people who enjoy building systems (providing value in your terms) and people who enjoy more of the detailed coding. The later group had a good thing going where they were extremely well compensated for doing an activity they enjoyed, so I think it make sense for them to be a bit distressed.
AnimalMuppet 3y ago
When assemblers were introduced, there were programmers who complained, because it ruined the intimacy of their communication with the computer that they had with octal. They meant it, too. Noticing that the "or" instruction differed only by one bit from the "subtract" instruction told you something about the probable inner workings of the CPU. It just turned out that it didn't matter - knowing that level of detail didn't help you write code nearly as much as it helped to be able to say "OR" instead of "032".

sublinear 3y ago

> AI being able to ask the right questions to help business stakeholders and customers clearly express what they need This is where the biggest impact will be: better requirements. I see no effect on writing code because humans already know how to write code just fine, but so many of the people running the business are absolutely clueless as to what it needs.

sebastiennight 3y ago

I think this is hugely mistaken, just like a few months ago when people assumed that "A.I. can't ever draw faces/hands" while doing so only required a couple updates. You're seemingly claiming that: "Taking an incomplete customer brief and asking relevant questions to make it clearer and complete is the largest value in programming" And... you're not seeing the possibility that large language models, i.e. AI that is specifically built to take in fuzzy bad language and provide a neat completion/reply, is ever going to be able to say "I'm sorry Dave, but your brief is a bit unclear, could you tell me why you want 3 download buttons on the Projects screen?" I have worked with outsourced offshore coders a lot over the years and I can guarantee you that a lot of the "programmer workforce", agencies and teams, just won't ask any of those questions. They'll blindly "start the work" on terrible incomplete briefs, build something that (predictably) won't work, and charge you for this broken software. Do you really not think that putting a "Product Team Assistant" AI (which might even be doable with today's GPT-4 with a few loops and clever prompting) between the client and the coding would drastically increase/replace the value of such teams?