4 ms·

I shared your view a year ago. Hell half my posts here on HN are arguing against the annoying hype. Today I make heavy use of AI and my code quality has gone up

I shared your view a year ago. Hell half my posts here on HN are arguing against the annoying hype. Today I make heavy use of AI and my code quality has gone up, not down. It's better tested, better factored, with better error handling covering more edge cases AI code is only buggy if no-one is guiding or reviewing it I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code

nicolapede 1y ago
What's your workflow/tool set?
WaltPurvis 1y ago
>someone in the middle In the middle between AI and what?
- ffsm8 1y ago
  The requirements. He's essentially saying that it's a complete guess how long the job of a programmer exists, and when it will change over to essentially product manager, of which you'll need a lot less. It could be decades... Or next month.
sundaeofshock 1y ago
That works because you are a senior developer who knows how to properly use the AI tools. What 10 years from now? What happens when senior devs are retiring and we do t have replacements since we replaced junior devs with AI?
- sauwan 1y ago
  Presumably, AI has advanced in 10 years?
  - evklein 1y ago
    Do you believe there's a threshold to how good this stuff can get, or do you think it's all infinite upside?
    - quesera 1y ago
      Obviously not infinite, but humans have very real limitations too. We've all seen them.
    - joquarky 1y ago
      A materialist could logically conclude that it still has some way to go.
      - evklein 1y ago
        Well I'd probably consider myself a materialist but I'm not sure I'd agree. The evidence to me seems that it can really only come from two places: additional compute or new breakthroughs in AI learning. Compute's coming, certainly, but that only has the potential to improve things if it's added in conjunction with a commensurate AI breakthrough. I think the trend in improvement for transformer could be logistic, not exponential, like a lot of the snake-oil salesman like to state. And while there's plenty of evidence for compute there isn't much for the AI breakthrough that leads to an exponential jump, and if it does exist it's a trade secret, so until we know we don't know.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  > What happens when senior devs are retiring and we do t have replacements since we replaced junior devs with AI? ... AI eats senior devs. Vibe coding front-end devs inherit the earth. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Clzx434IV6o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Clzx434IV6o
righthand 1y ago
I am senior developer and have easily and successfully avoided using Llm development these last few years. Nothing has changed for me and my team mates who do use it are slower than me and often don’t know what the Pr actually does. You chose to invest in the downward career slope. That’s why your opinion has changed. If you continued to resist it you wouldn’t be looking to remove yourself from the auditing/coding position.
- AstroBen 1y ago
  How is investing in something that improves my productivity and output quality a downward career slope? Continuing to use a hand saw when there are power tools available seems like the downward slope.. If AI gets to a point where I'm fully able to be removed from auditing/coding positions.. well there won't be any coding positions left for anyone > often don’t know what the Pr actually does this is on them for being lazy. I thoroughly review the code AI produces. I don't commit it if I don't understand it
  - righthand 1y ago
    > How is investing in something that improves my productivity and output quality a downward career slope? > I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code You don’t think relying on a system you yourself are predicting will replace you isn’t investing in a downward slope. Wait until you find out Llms are helping suppress your wages. > this is on them for being lazy. Just like you gave into Llms you became lazy about writing code. That is the trend with Llms, to do less work as you’ve been pointing out. You saving time the same thing as being lazy.
    - AstroBen 1y ago
      Not using LLMs doesn't make them go away. Whether they suppress wages or replace anyone is completely out of my control. Avoiding them just means I'd be producing below my potential > you became lazy about writing code I haven't, though. I still do the same amount of work except now I get more done. Now more of my energy goes into architecture, testing, specs, making sure it's built well instead of the lower level wiring things together I use them for their perfect memory and as a creativity buddy, not for them to think for me
dexwiz 1y ago
I view AI like a gas pedal. For an experienced driver it can really help. For someone new, straight into a wall. For some code you go straight for hours and barely touch the steering wheel. For some code it's all wheel and too much gas is a mistake. That said, we will need less coders overall. Just like you don't need human drafters or calculators in the same way. It will cut the bottom out of the industry, and entry level will be expected operate like a senior from 10 years ago.
- BobaFloutist 1y ago
  Maybe NOS is a better analogy, since even the newest of drivers is going to need and get use out of the gas pedal.
  - dexwiz 1y ago
    I think new devs could probably get use of it as a replacement for SO or Google. But if they slam on it and think they can vibe code a whole app, they are going to have a bad time. But NOS may be better. It might make you faster but it doesn't make you better.
- ethbr1 1y ago
  Or as the article put it: >> Most workers, and most work days, are just drudgery. Answering emails. Writing up quarterly plans. Reviewing metrics. Building applications that do something with data. Yes. Those jobs are going to disappear. If your role's primary value is shuffling paper around an org, or putting minor edits on something before forwarding, your job is going to disappear to AI in the next 1-3 years. Or AI-initiated human process optimization in the next 2-5 years, which I think is an underappreciated second wave. To define that: if we 10x or 100x the productivity of certain roles, won't companies look at the remaining unaccelerated human speedbumps and ask "Is it really that important we have a person do that? Because it's now costing us substantial latency and throughput of the process as a whole." And in many cases they'll likely conclude that no, it's not critical that a human be involved at that point. So poof those jobs as well. As a result, we'll have many fewer humans being much more productive. Tbd on whether that produces enough surplus (and equal allocation of it) to balance out the job losses.
guywithahat 1y ago
It makes me wonder if at some point people will regard writing code the same way they regard writing assembly
0manrho 1y ago
> I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code Always will, it's a question of how many people we need, not if. Well, until AGI (which I'm very bearish on in the near or even intermediate term) or some other monumental shift

nicolapede 1y ago

What's your workflow/tool set?

WaltPurvis 1y ago

>someone in the middle In the middle between AI and what?

ffsm8 1y ago
The requirements. He's essentially saying that it's a complete guess how long the job of a programmer exists, and when it will change over to essentially product manager, of which you'll need a lot less. It could be decades... Or next month.

sundaeofshock 1y ago

That works because you are a senior developer who knows how to properly use the AI tools. What 10 years from now? What happens when senior devs are retiring and we do t have replacements since we replaced junior devs with AI?

sauwan 1y ago
Presumably, AI has advanced in 10 years?
- evklein 1y ago
  Do you believe there's a threshold to how good this stuff can get, or do you think it's all infinite upside?
  - quesera 1y ago
    Obviously not infinite, but humans have very real limitations too. We've all seen them.
  - joquarky 1y ago
    A materialist could logically conclude that it still has some way to go.
    - evklein 1y ago
      Well I'd probably consider myself a materialist but I'm not sure I'd agree. The evidence to me seems that it can really only come from two places: additional compute or new breakthroughs in AI learning. Compute's coming, certainly, but that only has the potential to improve things if it's added in conjunction with a commensurate AI breakthrough. I think the trend in improvement for transformer could be logistic, not exponential, like a lot of the snake-oil salesman like to state. And while there's plenty of evidence for compute there isn't much for the AI breakthrough that leads to an exponential jump, and if it does exist it's a trade secret, so until we know we don't know.
ethbr1 1y ago
> What happens when senior devs are retiring and we do t have replacements since we replaced junior devs with AI? ... AI eats senior devs. Vibe coding front-end devs inherit the earth. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Clzx434IV6o https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Clzx434IV6o

righthand 1y ago

I am senior developer and have easily and successfully avoided using Llm development these last few years. Nothing has changed for me and my team mates who do use it are slower than me and often don’t know what the Pr actually does. You chose to invest in the downward career slope. That’s why your opinion has changed. If you continued to resist it you wouldn’t be looking to remove yourself from the auditing/coding position.

AstroBen 1y ago
How is investing in something that improves my productivity and output quality a downward career slope? Continuing to use a hand saw when there are power tools available seems like the downward slope.. If AI gets to a point where I'm fully able to be removed from auditing/coding positions.. well there won't be any coding positions left for anyone > often don’t know what the Pr actually does this is on them for being lazy. I thoroughly review the code AI produces. I don't commit it if I don't understand it
- righthand 1y ago
  > How is investing in something that improves my productivity and output quality a downward career slope? > I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code You don’t think relying on a system you yourself are predicting will replace you isn’t investing in a downward slope. Wait until you find out Llms are helping suppress your wages. > this is on them for being lazy. Just like you gave into Llms you became lazy about writing code. That is the trend with Llms, to do less work as you’ve been pointing out. You saving time the same thing as being lazy.
  - AstroBen 1y ago
    Not using LLMs doesn't make them go away. Whether they suppress wages or replace anyone is completely out of my control. Avoiding them just means I'd be producing below my potential > you became lazy about writing code I haven't, though. I still do the same amount of work except now I get more done. Now more of my energy goes into architecture, testing, specs, making sure it's built well instead of the lower level wiring things together I use them for their perfect memory and as a creativity buddy, not for them to think for me

dexwiz 1y ago

I view AI like a gas pedal. For an experienced driver it can really help. For someone new, straight into a wall. For some code you go straight for hours and barely touch the steering wheel. For some code it's all wheel and too much gas is a mistake. That said, we will need less coders overall. Just like you don't need human drafters or calculators in the same way. It will cut the bottom out of the industry, and entry level will be expected operate like a senior from 10 years ago.

BobaFloutist 1y ago
Maybe NOS is a better analogy, since even the newest of drivers is going to need and get use out of the gas pedal.
- dexwiz 1y ago
  I think new devs could probably get use of it as a replacement for SO or Google. But if they slam on it and think they can vibe code a whole app, they are going to have a bad time. But NOS may be better. It might make you faster but it doesn't make you better.
ethbr1 1y ago
Or as the article put it: >> Most workers, and most work days, are just drudgery. Answering emails. Writing up quarterly plans. Reviewing metrics. Building applications that do something with data. Yes. Those jobs are going to disappear. If your role's primary value is shuffling paper around an org, or putting minor edits on something before forwarding, your job is going to disappear to AI in the next 1-3 years. Or AI-initiated human process optimization in the next 2-5 years, which I think is an underappreciated second wave. To define that: if we 10x or 100x the productivity of certain roles, won't companies look at the remaining unaccelerated human speedbumps and ask "Is it really that important we have a person do that? Because it's now costing us substantial latency and throughput of the process as a whole." And in many cases they'll likely conclude that no, it's not critical that a human be involved at that point. So poof those jobs as well. As a result, we'll have many fewer humans being much more productive. Tbd on whether that produces enough surplus (and equal allocation of it) to balance out the job losses.

guywithahat 1y ago

It makes me wonder if at some point people will regard writing code the same way they regard writing assembly

0manrho 1y ago

> I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code Always will, it's a question of how many people we need, not if. Well, until AGI (which I'm very bearish on in the near or even intermediate term) or some other monumental shift