4 ms·

I don't see it - and by that I don't mean I don't think AI can write good code and get better over time. I just don't see how it would work as a workflow to rep

• creesch 3y ago
  I agree in the sense that, in its current state, will not replace devs entirely. But it can make the workflow much easier for many devs, to the point where you'd possibly need less of them or can get more done with the same amount. I commented about somewhere else in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38259425 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38259425 But basically I have found that it is a really powerful general purpose assistant/brainstorming pall for a lot of the things that would normally eat up a lot of time. To expand on that, it isn't even limited to code, but also surrounding tasks. I have used it to round out documentation in various ways. Either by giving it a lot of the rough information and asking to write coherent documentation for me, or by giving me feedback. The other way around it has helped me onboard on new projects by giving it bits and pieces of written text where I had trouble understanding what the document said. In the same sense when dealing with management bullshit I have used it to just presenting it with what was asked, telling it my view on it and then asking it to come up with responses based around certain perspectives. Which meant I had to spend less mental bandwidth on inane stuff there as well. And yes, a lot of it can also be achieved in a team with other people. But, those people aren't always around and also have their own things to do. The advantage of tools like ChatGPT is that they don't get tired, so I can really channel my inner toddler and just keeping asking "why" until I am satisfied with the answer. Even if there are other people available to turn to for help, ChatGPT can also help in refining the questions you want to ask.
• devjab 3y ago
  I’ve spent a long time in the public sector digitalisation in Denmark and where every other “no-code/low-code” or whatever you call the tools that claim to not require programmers have failed miserably GPT is succeeding. Yes, yes, I know some of you sell these tools and some of you have even been very successful in that effort but in my anecdotal experience from 98 municipalities, it’s never once worked, not for long anyway. By contrast we now have digitally inclined employees creating and automating things with the help of CharGPT. Much of it is terrible in terms of longevity the same way the previous RPA or workflow tools were, but unlike those, people can now also maintain them. At least as long as you keep the digitally inclined employees onboard, because they’re still not software developers and things like scaling, resource usage, documentation, error handling and so on isn’t being done. But it could be, at least for around 90% of it which will frankly never really matter enough to warrant an actual software developer anyway because it mostly “frees” a few hours a month through its automation. But with this ability, and the improvements in things like SharePoint online (and likely it’s competition that I don’t know about) a lot of the stuff you’d need either staffed software developers or external consultants to handle, can be handled internally. This isn’t the death of software engineering as such. Like I said, it doesn’t scale and it’s also going to create a bunch of issues in the long term as more and more of this “amateur” architecture needs to function together, but at the same time, if you need to Google how to get some random lines of text from a dictionary, then I’m not sure you aren’t in danger either. And I really don’t say this to be elitist, but everything you google program can be handled fairly easily by GPT and “good enough” that it’s simply going to happen more and more in our industry. If you look into my history you’ll see that I’m both impressed and unimpressed by LLMs (well GPT, let’s be honest the others all suck). This is because it really hasn’t been able to help us develop anything in our daily work. It writes most of our documentation, and it’s scary good at it. It also does a lot of code-generation, like auto-generating types/classes/whatever you call them from Excel data mapping sheets + CRUD functionality. Sure, we did that before by writing some short CLI scripts, but now GPT does it for the most part. So it’s not like we don’t use it, but for actual well designed code that handles business logic in a way that needs efficiency? Yeah, it’s outright terrible. Maybe that will change over time, so far it’s not improved in the slightest. But look at our industry as a whole. I know a lot of HN users work in American Tech or startups, but in the European non-tech Enterprise industry and the massive IT and consultant industry supporting it, there are a lot of developers who basically do what GPT excels at, and as these tools get better, we’re frankly just going to need a lot fewer software developers in general. Most of those people will likely transition into other jobs, like using GPT, but many won’t as other professions start doing their coding themselves. What worries me the most, however, is that we still teach a lot of CS students exactly what GPT is good at. I’m an external examiner for CS students at academy level, and GPT can basically ace all of their curriculum because it’s mainly focused on producing a lot of “easy” code for businesses. I’m scared a lot of those students are going to have a rough time once LLMs really pick up, unless the curriculum changes. It won’t change in time though, because it’s already been sort of “outdated” for a decade because of how slowly our higher educations adapt to the real world here in Denmark.
• mrtksn 3y ago
  At this stage, it's like a junior. It's pretty useful for the boilerplate or mundane stuff and even with implementation of algorithms from human description to computer code. It's also very good at converting a code from one language to another and getting stuff done when directed properly. I can definitely see how large impact it will have on the employment prospects of many. It's not replacing the engineers yet, but those who specialise in a tech as an implementation specialist are screwed. Even the increased productivity alone will reduce the demand.
  • vasco 3y ago
    In most real world systems increased efficiency leads to more demand, not less - barring physical constraints. Usually because we can now apply the _thing_ to way more complex scenarios. I predict way more software will be created per year and more complex software will exist and evolve at a faster pace. Once you make agriculture more efficient we can't really eat way more than today so we need less people working there. But if you make software easier to write, I think you'll just end up with way more software because the complexity of human needs and processes is unbounded unlike eating food. Also called the efficiency paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
    • mrtksn 3y ago
      Sure, the total demand increases but not the same kind of demand that it's replacing. We may end up seeing CSS specialists "rust belt" falling in poverty while theres substantial wealth build up among "prompt engineers" with good taste in aesthetics.
      • vasco 3y ago
        In any job if you overspecialize and don't learn the fundamentals you're at risk. A CSS specialist is like a CRT TV fixer as compared to a general programmer and an electrician, respectively. Those jobs always have numbered days.
        • 3y ago