3 ms·
>That's still 2 people who won't be employed, but they haven't been 'replaced' by AI in the way people seem to think they will be. That's exactly what people m
by bondarchuk 1y ago
>That's still 2 people who won't be employed, but they haven't been 'replaced' by AI in the way people seem to think they will be.
That's exactly what people mean by "replacing".
- frank_nitti 1y agoThere are several commenters in this thread who actually see it as having zero software engineering team at all; there would not be a single person on staff who could read and understand application code. I would agree about needing fewer heads performing types of roles, and I could even buy that tech staff would hardly ever need to handwrite code directly. For serious projects where critical data, physical safety, etc for end users are at stake, I still don’t see the path toward simply having no in-house engineer to certify changes generated by an LLM
- jonplackett 1y agoBasically I’m saying the same - I don’t think it’s gonna actually do an engineer’s job. But that this doesn’t mean engineers are all gonna be fine. To argue against myself though - it might just mean more/better code is written by the same number of engineers. If code gets cheaper, people will use more of it
- jonplackett 1y agoI don’t think they do - I think people feel like they’re somehow ‘safe’ because AI can’t do ALL of their job. My point is that it doesn’t have to and can still screw up the economics of your job. Maybe I’m just stating the obvious…