4 ms·

Why do developers continue to work on AI? Sooner or later (probably sooner) it will be adequate enough to remove the need for many or most developers. I liste

by efitz 2y ago

Why do developers continue to work on AI? Sooner or later (probably sooner) it will be adequate enough to remove the need for many or most developers. I listened to this week’s All In podcast and the podcasters (all wildly successful tech entrepreneurs) were quite emphatic that they were seeking a world where they were not beholden to developers. They envision a world where non- or semi-technical employees create the desired software via AI; other AI agents would then figure out how to deploy it. I feel like we are at a similar point to many other professions in the past facing a rapid technological change. But in the case of software development, developers themselves are hastening their own demise. Just something to think on.

fourside 2y ago
The people directly responsible for advancing the latest AI tech are both small in number relative to the entire population of devs and they also have a chance of building generational wealth as a result of it. The rest of us are trying to keep up with AI because it’s both interesting and because we don’t have a choice.
- righthand 2y ago
  You have a choice. What is preventing choice?
jarsin 2y ago
I find it fascinating how people that successful don't take that thought process one step further. If they use AI to build an app by just telling it what to do then everyone on the planet can look at how their app works and describe it to their AI thus making a clone. Even Eric Schmidt said at Standford that we would be able use AI to copy TikTok and steal all of it's content and users in the next few years. Interestingly though he didn't even think to mention Youtube...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
ewoodrich 2y ago
All In hosts are probably more accurately described these days as "extremely wealthy tech investors" and in that context AI hype about eliminating those software devs with their pesky salaries makes quite a bit more sense. If nothing else they'd be extremely out of step with the rest of the market saying anything different and what would they gain by rocking the boat?
anonzzzies 2y ago
I am a lifelong (40+ years of daily coding so far) programmer and it brought me good things. I actually think I am working on my last project, which indeed is to replace programmers. Not all, just for things we as a company do. We are very far with it. My biggest, existential, revelation is that my goals and successful products have always been around replacing programmers. My first sale of a product company (that made me rich enough to retire, which I did not) was a nocode tool I built in the late 90s. As that has been my work and hobby ever since the early 80s, I cannot imagine what I would build if, indeed, I would no longer need to program but can just say what I want. I want nothing, but to program.
- geonnave 2y ago
  What is your project?
rsynnott 2y ago
> I listened to this week’s All In podcast and the podcasters (all wildly successful tech entrepreneurs) were quite emphatic that they were seeking a world where they were not beholden to developers. They envision a world where non- or semi-technical employees create the desired software via AI; other AI agents would then figure out how to deploy it. Okay, so, the thing is, roughly every decade since 1960, someone has come out with something that promises “use this, and you won’t need those icky programmers anymore”. COBOL was originally marketed this way! And then you had various flavours of implausibly high level language, that Sun thing where you were meant to make software by dragging and dropping flowcharts (quite why that was supposed to be _easier_ than programming was unclear), Macromedia Flash (while this eventually just became a platform that people wrote programs for, it was originally touted as being a bit like the Sun thing, with Actionscript as a mere escape hatch), the recent ‘nocode’ trend, a few similar historical ‘nocode’ trends, and so forth. The only thing that has come _close_ to doing this is the spreadsheet, though that kind of happened by accident, as people took what was originally supposed to be a simple tool and created nightmares (and this sort of aggressive use leaves you needing icky Excel experts, which may not be an improvement). Like, I’ve never heard of that podcast, but on Googling it I note that none of the people involved could reasonably be called subject matter experts (also, argh, Jason Calacanis appears to still be a thing). I’m not sure why you’d take their word on it.

by efitz 2y ago

fourside 2y ago

The people directly responsible for advancing the latest AI tech are both small in number relative to the entire population of devs and they also have a chance of building generational wealth as a result of it. The rest of us are trying to keep up with AI because it’s both interesting and because we don’t have a choice.

righthand 2y ago
You have a choice. What is preventing choice?

jarsin 2y ago

I find it fascinating how people that successful don't take that thought process one step further. If they use AI to build an app by just telling it what to do then everyone on the planet can look at how their app works and describe it to their AI thus making a clone. Even Eric Schmidt said at Standford that we would be able use AI to copy TikTok and steal all of it's content and users in the next few years. Interestingly though he didn't even think to mention Youtube...

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

ewoodrich 2y ago

All In hosts are probably more accurately described these days as "extremely wealthy tech investors" and in that context AI hype about eliminating those software devs with their pesky salaries makes quite a bit more sense. If nothing else they'd be extremely out of step with the rest of the market saying anything different and what would they gain by rocking the boat?

anonzzzies 2y ago

I am a lifelong (40+ years of daily coding so far) programmer and it brought me good things. I actually think I am working on my last project, which indeed is to replace programmers. Not all, just for things we as a company do. We are very far with it. My biggest, existential, revelation is that my goals and successful products have always been around replacing programmers. My first sale of a product company (that made me rich enough to retire, which I did not) was a nocode tool I built in the late 90s. As that has been my work and hobby ever since the early 80s, I cannot imagine what I would build if, indeed, I would no longer need to program but can just say what I want. I want nothing, but to program.

geonnave 2y ago
What is your project?

rsynnott 2y ago

> I listened to this week’s All In podcast and the podcasters (all wildly successful tech entrepreneurs) were quite emphatic that they were seeking a world where they were not beholden to developers. They envision a world where non- or semi-technical employees create the desired software via AI; other AI agents would then figure out how to deploy it. Okay, so, the thing is, roughly every decade since 1960, someone has come out with something that promises “use this, and you won’t need those icky programmers anymore”. COBOL was originally marketed this way! And then you had various flavours of implausibly high level language, that Sun thing where you were meant to make software by dragging and dropping flowcharts (quite why that was supposed to be _easier_ than programming was unclear), Macromedia Flash (while this eventually just became a platform that people wrote programs for, it was originally touted as being a bit like the Sun thing, with Actionscript as a mere escape hatch), the recent ‘nocode’ trend, a few similar historical ‘nocode’ trends, and so forth. The only thing that has come _close_ to doing this is the spreadsheet, though that kind of happened by accident, as people took what was originally supposed to be a simple tool and created nightmares (and this sort of aggressive use leaves you needing icky Excel experts, which may not be an improvement). Like, I’ve never heard of that podcast, but on Googling it I note that none of the people involved could reasonably be called subject matter experts (also, argh, Jason Calacanis appears to still be a thing). I’m not sure why you’d take their word on it.