4 ms·

As a programmer, I think it's easier to replace programmers than many other occupations. We work with generic DSLs called programming languages, which can be ea

by gokhan 2y ago

As a programmer, I think it's easier to replace programmers than many other occupations. We work with generic DSLs called programming languages, which can be easily handled by AI. Most of what we produce can be easily parsed by an AI. We work in small, incremental tasks which is perfect for AI. Most of us use the same set of tools. What else? UI is similar everywhere, especially in LoB apps. What we produce is repetitive, most of us practically doing clever meshups of the code on the Internet. Thank Crom I'm old. But I'm worried for my kids.

machine_ghost 2y ago
In the long run, yes, but if programming were so rote and simple, we all wouldn't have jobs in the first place. Look, technology has always replaced jobs, throughout history (how many of you know professional lamp lighters, elevator doormen, or switchboard operators?) But the thing is, tech has always replaced the jobs that are easiest to automate ... not the "intellectual work". I would be far more worried about being a real estate agent, food preparer, or heck, even a lawyer (for some specialties at least). I think they're all at more risk than programmers.
- myth_drannon 2y ago
  real estate agents, lawyers are all licensed professionals... they will not be replaced but possibly these professions will be overcrowded.
ericmcer 2y ago
Doing the small incremental tasks is the easiest part of programming. All the complexity lies in taking giant specs and breaking it into manageable goals and then small tasks. AI is still pretty far from doing that, but I agree, I would not want to be a teenager right now and face the prospect of entering the workforce after 10 years more of progress. Unless work is a thing of the past by then, and we were the last generation of suckers who lived under the reality where 40hrs/week was just the way life is.
balls187 2y ago
"The report of my death was an exaggeration." - Mark Twain. I don't see it as "replacing programmers" but rather, trying to solve the types of problems that programmers solve, but more cheaply. I'm not sure your age relative to mine, but I got my start a hair breath after 9-11 in the defense industry. I've experienced the "tectonic" shifts in programming since that time. In each case, Programmers seemed to shift away from the work that was being done more cheaply, to work that require more specialization that was harder to be done. I see the promise of AI as a threat to my job, but the reality is likely more like what happened with automobiles vs horses. Less horse shoe makers, more car mechanics. Some day, I may be too tired and too dumb to become a mechanic. But today is not that day.
username223 2y ago
Sure, programmers work in formal languages, but they can't make mistakes. If your marketing copy contains a few lies or your hero image has a guy with six fingers, the recipients will still infer the intended meaning (or ignore it). If your program has a subtle bug, the computer will faithfully do the wrong thing. LLMs are great for tasks where small mistakes don't matter, and useless for ones where they do. Generating a 10,000-line Rails app where 10 of those lines are wrong is not very useful.
- danielbln 2y ago
  Of you think most programmers won't mess up 10 lines every 10000 lines then I have a bridge to sell you.
myth_drannon 2y ago
Cobol was also supposed to give power to business people so they could in plain English language, "program" the computer. It never happened but for sure advances in PL changed how programmers interacted with computer. We went from machine code to Python,React which is huge technological leap. The same goes for all the AI agents, it will change how we work but will not make programmers obsolete. I'm more worried about 3 million engineering grads per year from India replacing me than CoPilot/CursorAI

by gokhan 2y ago

machine_ghost 2y ago

In the long run, yes, but if programming were so rote and simple, we all wouldn't have jobs in the first place. Look, technology has always replaced jobs, throughout history (how many of you know professional lamp lighters, elevator doormen, or switchboard operators?) But the thing is, tech has always replaced the jobs that are easiest to automate ... not the "intellectual work". I would be far more worried about being a real estate agent, food preparer, or heck, even a lawyer (for some specialties at least). I think they're all at more risk than programmers.

myth_drannon 2y ago
real estate agents, lawyers are all licensed professionals... they will not be replaced but possibly these professions will be overcrowded.

ericmcer 2y ago

Doing the small incremental tasks is the easiest part of programming. All the complexity lies in taking giant specs and breaking it into manageable goals and then small tasks. AI is still pretty far from doing that, but I agree, I would not want to be a teenager right now and face the prospect of entering the workforce after 10 years more of progress. Unless work is a thing of the past by then, and we were the last generation of suckers who lived under the reality where 40hrs/week was just the way life is.

balls187 2y ago

"The report of my death was an exaggeration." - Mark Twain. I don't see it as "replacing programmers" but rather, trying to solve the types of problems that programmers solve, but more cheaply. I'm not sure your age relative to mine, but I got my start a hair breath after 9-11 in the defense industry. I've experienced the "tectonic" shifts in programming since that time. In each case, Programmers seemed to shift away from the work that was being done more cheaply, to work that require more specialization that was harder to be done. I see the promise of AI as a threat to my job, but the reality is likely more like what happened with automobiles vs horses. Less horse shoe makers, more car mechanics. Some day, I may be too tired and too dumb to become a mechanic. But today is not that day.

username223 2y ago

Sure, programmers work in formal languages, but they can't make mistakes. If your marketing copy contains a few lies or your hero image has a guy with six fingers, the recipients will still infer the intended meaning (or ignore it). If your program has a subtle bug, the computer will faithfully do the wrong thing. LLMs are great for tasks where small mistakes don't matter, and useless for ones where they do. Generating a 10,000-line Rails app where 10 of those lines are wrong is not very useful.

danielbln 2y ago
Of you think most programmers won't mess up 10 lines every 10000 lines then I have a bridge to sell you.

myth_drannon 2y ago

Cobol was also supposed to give power to business people so they could in plain English language, "program" the computer. It never happened but for sure advances in PL changed how programmers interacted with computer. We went from machine code to Python,React which is huge technological leap. The same goes for all the AI agents, it will change how we work but will not make programmers obsolete. I'm more worried about 3 million engineering grads per year from India replacing me than CoPilot/CursorAI