4 ms·

I don't think it's an exclusive choice between the two, though. I think senior engineers will end up doing both. Looking at GitHub Copilot's agent, it can work

I don't think it's an exclusive choice between the two, though. I think senior engineers will end up doing both. Looking at GitHub Copilot's agent, it can work asynchronously from the user, so a senior engineer can send it off to work on multiple issues at once while still working on tasks that aren't well suited for the agent. And really, I think many senior engineers are already doing both in a lot of cases where they're helping guide and teach junior and early mid-level developers.

lapcat 1y ago
> And really, I think many senior engineers are already doing both in a lot of cases where they're helping guide and teach junior and early mid-level developers. Babysitting and correcting automated tools is radically different from mentoring less experienced engineers. First, and most important IMO, there's no relationship. It's entirely impersonal. You become alienated from your fellow humans. I'm reminded of Mark Zuckerberg recently claiming that in the future, most of your "friends" will be A.I. That's not an ideal, it's a damn dystopia. Moreover, you're not teaching the LLM anything. If the LLMs happen to become better in the future, that's not due to your mentoring. The time you spend reviewing the automatically generated code does not have any productive side effects, doesn't help to "level up" your coworkers/copilots. Also, since LLMs aren't human, they don't make human mistakes. In some sense, reviewing a human engineer's code is an exercise in mind reading: you can guess what they were thinking, and where they might have overlooked something. But LLMs don't "think" in the same way, and they tend to produce bizarre results and mistakes that a human would never make. Reviewing their code can be a very different, and indeed unpleasant WTF experience.
bluefirebrand 1y ago
Guiding and teaching developers is rewarding because human connections are important I don't mentor juniors because it makes me more productive I mentor juniors because I enjoy watching a human grow and develop and gain expertise I am reminded of reports that Ian McKellen broke down crying on the set of one of The Hobbit movies because the joy of being an actor for him was nothing like acting on green screen sets delivering lines to a tennis ball on a stick
- ookblah 1y ago
  and just to play devil's advocate maybe some people don't enjoy that? remove the issue of training the next generation for a moment. just like with open vs. closed offices or remote vs in-person, maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want.
  - bluefirebrand 1y ago
    > maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want This isn't about satisfying a person's need for socializing it is about satisfying society's need for well socialized people You can prefer closed offices and still be a well socialized person You can prefer remote work and still be a well socialized person You can even prefer working alone and still be a well socialized person If you are in favor of replacing all humans with machines, you are pretty much by definition an asocial person and society should reject you
    - ookblah 1y ago
      you're making a strawman here. it was never black and white and i never advocated all humans being replaced with machines so we have zero interaction with each other. every technological push has been to automate more and more and every time that's happened we've reduced socialization to some extent or changed the nature of it (social media anyone? and yes, this also has everything to do with remote vs in-person, etc, all which pull the lever on what level of socialization is acceptable). just because it doesn't fit your particular brand doesn't mean it's wrong, and it's clear this is pushing on your line where you find it unacceptable. i could just as well argue that people who do not show up to an in-person office are not "socialized" to the degree society needs them to be. the debate has always been to what degree is this acceptable.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > and just to play devil's advocate Your comment would be improved by simply removing that phrase. It adds nothing and in fact detracts. > just like with open vs. closed offices or remote vs in-person, maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want. You're presenting a false dichotomy. If someone doesn't enjoying mentoring juniors, that's fine. They shouldn't have to. But why would one have to choose between mentoring juniors or babysitting LLM agents? How about neither? sasmithjr was apparently trying to defend babysitting A.I. by making an analogy with mentoring juniors, whereas I replied by arguing that the two are not alike. Whether or not you enjoy using A.I. is an entirely separate issue, independent of mentoring.

lapcat 1y ago

> And really, I think many senior engineers are already doing both in a lot of cases where they're helping guide and teach junior and early mid-level developers. Babysitting and correcting automated tools is radically different from mentoring less experienced engineers. First, and most important IMO, there's no relationship. It's entirely impersonal. You become alienated from your fellow humans. I'm reminded of Mark Zuckerberg recently claiming that in the future, most of your "friends" will be A.I. That's not an ideal, it's a damn dystopia. Moreover, you're not teaching the LLM anything. If the LLMs happen to become better in the future, that's not due to your mentoring. The time you spend reviewing the automatically generated code does not have any productive side effects, doesn't help to "level up" your coworkers/copilots. Also, since LLMs aren't human, they don't make human mistakes. In some sense, reviewing a human engineer's code is an exercise in mind reading: you can guess what they were thinking, and where they might have overlooked something. But LLMs don't "think" in the same way, and they tend to produce bizarre results and mistakes that a human would never make. Reviewing their code can be a very different, and indeed unpleasant WTF experience.

bluefirebrand 1y ago

Guiding and teaching developers is rewarding because human connections are important I don't mentor juniors because it makes me more productive I mentor juniors because I enjoy watching a human grow and develop and gain expertise I am reminded of reports that Ian McKellen broke down crying on the set of one of The Hobbit movies because the joy of being an actor for him was nothing like acting on green screen sets delivering lines to a tennis ball on a stick

ookblah 1y ago
and just to play devil's advocate maybe some people don't enjoy that? remove the issue of training the next generation for a moment. just like with open vs. closed offices or remote vs in-person, maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want.
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want This isn't about satisfying a person's need for socializing it is about satisfying society's need for well socialized people You can prefer closed offices and still be a well socialized person You can prefer remote work and still be a well socialized person You can even prefer working alone and still be a well socialized person If you are in favor of replacing all humans with machines, you are pretty much by definition an asocial person and society should reject you
  - ookblah 1y ago
    you're making a strawman here. it was never black and white and i never advocated all humans being replaced with machines so we have zero interaction with each other. every technological push has been to automate more and more and every time that's happened we've reduced socialization to some extent or changed the nature of it (social media anyone? and yes, this also has everything to do with remote vs in-person, etc, all which pull the lever on what level of socialization is acceptable). just because it doesn't fit your particular brand doesn't mean it's wrong, and it's clear this is pushing on your line where you find it unacceptable. i could just as well argue that people who do not show up to an in-person office are not "socialized" to the degree society needs them to be. the debate has always been to what degree is this acceptable.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > and just to play devil's advocate Your comment would be improved by simply removing that phrase. It adds nothing and in fact detracts. > just like with open vs. closed offices or remote vs in-person, maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want. You're presenting a false dichotomy. If someone doesn't enjoying mentoring juniors, that's fine. They shouldn't have to. But why would one have to choose between mentoring juniors or babysitting LLM agents? How about neither? sasmithjr was apparently trying to defend babysitting A.I. by making an analogy with mentoring juniors, whereas I replied by arguing that the two are not alike. Whether or not you enjoy using A.I. is an entirely separate issue, independent of mentoring.