28 ms·

AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Why does it mostly make seniors stronger?

• paulcole 1y ago
  > AI Was Supposed to Help Juniors Shine. Whoever said this?
• emmelaich 1y ago
  Because it's a multiplier not an adder.
• mkoubaa 1y ago
  This surprises people? How?
• Rzor 1y ago
  >Of course, the junior + AI pairing was tempting. It looked cheaper and played into the fear that “AI will take our jobs.” Those are two different narratives. One implies that everyone will be able to code and build: "English as a programming language", etc. The other is one of those headless-chicken, apocalyptic scenarios where AI has already made (or will very shortly make) human programmers obsolete. "AI taking jobs" means everyone's job. I won't even comment on the absurdity of that idea; to me, it only comes from people who've never worked professionally. At the end of the day, companies will take any vaguely reasonable excuse to cull juniors and save money. It's just business. LLMs are simply the latest excuse, though yes, they do improve productivity, to varying degrees depending on what exactly you work on.
  • Terr_ 1y ago
    > Those are two different narratives. Also, those two narratives are sometimes deployed as a false-dichotomy, where both just make the same assumption that LLM weaknesses will vanish and dramatic improvement will continue indefinitely. A historical analogy: * A: "Segway™ balancing vehicles will be so beneficially effective that private vehicles will be rare in 2025." * B: "No, Segways™ will be so harmfully effective that people will start to suffer from lower body atrophy by 2025."
  • bananaflag 1y ago
    > "AI taking jobs" means everyone's job. I won't even comment on the absurdity of that idea; to me, it only comes from people who've never worked professionally. I work professionally (I am even a bit renowned) and still believe AI will take my (and everyone's) job.
  • palmotea 1y ago
    > "AI taking jobs" means everyone's job. I won't even comment on the absurdity of that idea; to me, it only comes from people who've never worked professionally. Once you've worked professionally, it's not so absurd. I mean, you really see to believe the extreme compromises in quality that upper management is often willing to tolerate to save a buck in the short term.
  • pjmlp 1y ago
    Well, I can certainly assert that anyone that used to do translations or image assets for CMS is out of job nowadays.
• jacquesm 1y ago
  For the same reason that an amateur with a powertool ends up in the emergency room and a seasoned pro knows which way to point the business end. AI is in many ways a powertool, if you don't know what you are doing it will help you to do that much more efficiently. If you do know what you are doing it will do the same.
  • KolibriFly 1y ago
    Power tools don't magically make you a carpenter - they just amplify whatever level of skill you already bring
    • heelix 1y ago
      One of my favorite memories of my grandfather was - Any power tool becomes a sander if you use it wrong.
  • Hilift 1y ago
    Supposedly in the US there are 25,000 emergency room visits per year for chainsaw injuries. Or that is what AI wants us to think, so it can take all the good chainsaw jobs.
    • jacquesm 1y ago
      Doesn't suprise me one bit, but I am surprised it is that low.
• mikert89 1y ago
  Ai amplifies intelligence/skill
  • leptons 1y ago
    quality > quantity
  • AngryData 1y ago
    I would refute that and say AI only amplifies knowledge, but doesn't make anyone more skilled or intelligent.
    • daveguy 1y ago
      It has the potential to amplify knowledge, but you have to already be skilled and intelligent to be able to identify false information.
  • add-sub-mul-div 1y ago
    I'm not cynical enough to believe that the avalanche of slop we're wading through represents something above our collective innate level of intelligence and skill.
    • deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]
  • ath3nd 1y ago
    [dead]
• INTPenis 1y ago
  Because it's too unpredictable so far. AI saves me time, but only because I could do everything it attempts to do myself. It's wrong maybe 40-50% of the time, so I can't even imagine the disasters I'm averting by recognising when it's giving me completely bonkers suggestions.
  • altbdoor 1y ago
    Same thoughts. Company is currently migrating from tech A to tech B, and while AI gets us 70-80% of the way, due to the riskier nature of the business, we now spend way more time reviewing the code.
• lolive 1y ago
  I read, ages ago, this apocryphal quote by William Gibson: “The most important skill of the 21st century is to figure out which proper keywords to type in the Google search bar, to display the proper answers.” To me, that has never been more true. Most junior dev ask GeminiPiTi to write the JavaScript code for them, whereas I ask it for explanation on the underlying model of async/await and the execution model of a JavaScript engine. There is a similar issue when you learn piano. Your immediate wish is to play Chopin, whereas the true path is to identify,name and study all the tricks there are in his pieces of art.
  • cpursley 1y ago
    Nailed it. Being productive with LLMs is very similar to the skill of being able to write good Google searches. And many many people still don't really know how to conduct a proper Google search...
  • KolibriFly 1y ago
    Feels like the real "AI literacy" isn't prompt engineering in the meme sense, but building the conceptual scaffolding so that the prompts (and the outputs) actually connect to something meaningful
    • lolive 1y ago
      That’s my definition of prompt engineering.
  • fxj 1y ago
    I agree, you need to know the "language" and the keywords of the topics that you want to work with. If you are a complete newcomer to a field then AI wont help you much. You have to tell the AI "assume I have A, B and C and now I want to do D" then it understands and tries to find a solution. It has a load of information stored but cannot make use of that information in a creative way.
  • Dumblydorr 1y ago
    The true path in Piano isn’t learning tricks. You start with the most basic pieces and work step by step up to harder ones. That’s how everyone I know has done in it my 26 years of playing. Tricks cheapens the actual music. Chopin has beginners pieces too, many in our piano studio were first year pianists doing rain drop prelude, e minor prelude, or other beginner works like Bach.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• johanyc 1y ago
  > The early narrative was that companies would need fewer seniors, and juniors together with AI could produce quality code I have never heard that before
  • tbrownaw 1y ago
    I heard that it was supposed to replace developers (no "senior" or "junior" qualifier), by letting non-technical people make things.
    • refactor_master 1y ago
      Ah yes, data citizens and no-code. I wonder what kind of insanity we’ll see in the future.
    • lodovic 1y ago
      That's just not going to happen. Senior devs will get 5-10 times as productive, wielding an army of agents comparable to junior devs. Other people will increasingly get lost in the architecture, fundamental bugs, rewrites, agent loops, and ambiguities of software design. I have never been able to take up as much work as I currently do.
      • fxj 1y ago
        I see it at our place that seniors get more productive but also that juniors get faster on track and more easily learn the basics that are needed and to do basic tasks like doumentation and tutorial writing. It helps both groups but it does not make a 100x coder out of a newbee or even code by itself. This was a pipe dream from the beginning and some people/companies still sell it that way. In the end AI is a tool that helps everyone to get better but the knowledge and creativity is still in the people not in the input files of chatgpt.
      • rcxdude 1y ago
        The effect I have observed is that it's fairly good at tricking people who are latently capable of programming but have been intimidated by it. They will fall for the promise of not having to code, but then wind up having to reason and learn about the LLM's output and fix it themselves, but in the end they do wind up with something they would not have made otherwise. It's still not good or elegant code, but it's often the kind of very useful small hacky utility that would not be made otherwise.
• 8note 1y ago
  does it really? it lets seniors work more, but idk if its necessarily stronger. i just soent some time cleaning up au code where it lied about the architecture so it wrote the wrong thing. the architecture is wonky, sure, but finding the wonks earlier would have been better
• ismail 1y ago
  learning typically follows a specific path. 1. Unconsciously incompetent 2. Consciously incompetent 3. Consciously competent 4. Unconsciously competent The challenge with AI, it will give you “good enough” output, without feedback loops you never move to 2,3,4 and assume you are doing ok. Hence it stunts learning. So juniors or inexperienced stay inexperienced, without knowing what they don’t know. You have to Use it as an expert thinking partner. Tell it to ask you questions & not give you the answer.
  • tuatoru 1y ago
    Also ask it "what questions should I be asking about this topic?"
• ehnto 1y ago
  Certainly not just coding. Senior designers and copywriters get much better results as well. It is not surprising, if context is one of the most important aspects of a prompt, then someone with domain experience is going to be able to construct better context. Similarly, it takes experience to spot when the LLM is going in the wrong direction it making mistakes. I think for supercharging a junior, it should be used more like a pair programmer, not for code generation. It can help you quickly gain knowledge and troubleshoot. But relying on a juniors prompts and guidance to get good code gen is going to be suboptimal.
  • scuff3d 1y ago
    The funny part is that it completely fails in the area so many people are desperate for it to succeed: replacing engineers and letting non-technical people create complex systems. Look at any actually useful case for AI, or just through this thread, and it's always the same thing; expertise is critical to getting anything useful out of these things (in terms of direct code generation anyway).
• pagutierrezn 1y ago
  AI is filling "narrow" gaps. In the case of seniors these are: -techs they understand but still not master. AI aids with implementation details only experts knowb about - No time for long coding tasks. It aids with fast implementations and automatic tests. - No time for learning techs that adress well understood problems. Ai helps with quick intros, fast demos and solver of learners' misunderstandings In essence, in seniors it impacts productivity In the case of juniors AI fills the gaps too. But these are different from seniors' and AI does not excell in them because gaps are wider and broader - Understand the problems of the business domain. AI helps but not that much. - Understand how the organization works. AI is not very helpful here. - Learn the techs to be used. AI helps but it doesn't know how to guide a junior in a specific organisational context and specific business domain. In essence it helps, but not that much because the gaps are wider and more difficult to fill
  • KolibriFly 1y ago
    Feels like we're seeing AI accelerate those who already know where they're going, while leaving the early-stage learners still needing the same human guidance they always did.
  • fxj 1y ago
    In my experience AI is wikipedia/stackoverflow on steroids when I need to know something about a field I dont know much about. It has nice explanations and you can ask for examples or scenarios and it will tell you what you didnt understand. Only when you know about the basic notions in the field you want to work with AI can be productive. This is not only valid for coding but also for other fields in science and humanities.
    • lazide 1y ago
      Except stackoverflow was only occasionally hallucinating entire libraries.
      • Den_VR 1y ago
        Perhaps asking the machine to do your job for you isn’t as effective asking the machine to help you think like a senior and find the information you need to do the job yourself.
• zaptheimpaler 1y ago
  Some of the juniors I work with frequently point to AI output as a source without any verification. One crazy example was using it to do simple arithmetic, which they then took as correct (and it was wrong). This is all a pretty well-trodden debate at this point though. AI works as a Copilot which you monitor and verify and task with specific things, it does not work as a pilot. It's not about junior or senior, it's about whether you want to use this thing to do your homework/write your essay/write your code for you or whether you use it as an assistant/tutor, and whether you are able to verify its output or not.
  • scuff3d 1y ago
    Even as an assistant it's frustrating. Even trying to get simple stuff like a quick summary of a tools flags/commands can be hilariously wrong at times.
• dgfitz 1y ago
  Step one would be to stop calling whatever this is “AI” because while it may be artificial, it is not at all intelligent.
• zarzavat 1y ago
  If you search back HN history to the beginnings of AI coding in 2021 you will find people observing that AI is bad for juniors because they can't distinguish between good and bad completions. There is no surprise, it's always been this way. Edit interesting thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27678424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27678424 Edit: an example of the kind of comment I was talking about: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27677690 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27677690
  • zevon 1y ago
    This. Anecdotally, I had a student around 2021 who had some technical inclination and interest but no CS education and no programming experience. He got into using AI early and with the help of ChatGPT was able to contribute rather substantially to something we were developing at the time which would usually have been much too complex for a beginner. However, he also introduced quite a few security issues, did a lot of things in very roundabout ways, did not even consider some libraries/approaches that would have made his life much easier and more maintainable and his documentation was enthusiastic but often... slightly factually questionable and also quite roundabout. It was quite interesting to have discussions with him after his code check-ins and I think the whole process was a good educational experience for everybody who was involved. It would not have worked this way without a combination of AI and experienced people involved.
  • fxj 1y ago
    Also AI cannot draw conclusions like "from A and B follows C". You really have to point its nose into the result that you want and then it finally understands. This is especially hard for juniors because they are just learning to see the big picture. For senior who already knows more or less what they want and needs only to work out the nitty gritty details this is much easier. I dont know where the claims come from that AI is PHD level. When it comes to reasoning it is more like a 5 year old.
  • thecupisblue 1y ago
    Pretty much, but it already starts at the prompting and context level. Senior engineers either already know exactly where the changes need to be made and can suggest what to do. They probably know the pitfalls, have established patterns, architectures and designs in their head. Juniors on the other hand don't have that, so they go with whatever. Nowadays a lot of them also "ask ChatGPT about its opinion on architecture" when told to refactor (a real quote from real junior/mid engineers), leading to either them using whatever sloppypasta they get provided. Senior devs earned their experience of what is good/bad through writing code, understanding how hard and annoying it is to make a change, then reworking those parts or making them better the next time. The feedback loop was impactful beacause it was based on that code and them working with that code, so they knew exactly what the annoying parts are. Vibe-coding juniors do not know that, their conversation context knows that. Once things get buggy and changes are hard, they will fill up their context with tries/retries until it works, leading to their feedback loop being trained on prompts and coding tools, not code itself. Even if they read the outputted code, they have no experience using it so they are not aware of the issues - i.e. something would be better being a typed state, but they don't really use it so they will not care, as they do not have to handle the edge cases, they will not understand the DX from an IDE, they will not build a full mental model of how it works, just a shallow one. This leads to insane inefficiencies - wasting 50 prompt cycles instead of 10, not understanding cross-codebase patterns, lack of learning transfer from codebase to codebase, etc. With a minor understanding of state modeling and architecture, an vibe-coding junior can be made 100x more efficient, but due to the vibe-coding itself, they will probably never learn state modeling and architecture, learn to refactor or properly manipulate abstractions, leading to an eternal cycle of LLM-driven sloppypasta code, trained on millions of terrible github repositories, old outdated API's and stack overflow answers.
• dboreham 1y ago
  Uh because an LLM is a transfer function. Specifically a transfer function where the input has to be carefully crafted. And specifically where the output has to be carefully reviewed. Inexperienced people are good at neither of those things.
• nudpiedo 1y ago
  No one thought juniors would be more benefited than seniors. St some people some said everything would be automatic and seniors would disappear altogether with programming itself. But that was just said by crappy influencers whose opinion doesn’t matter as they are impressed by examples result of overfitting
• ochronus 1y ago
  It doesn't.
• pjmlp 1y ago
  Was it? That is always one way it gets sold, in practice I see we (the industry) are trying to replace offshoring with AI.
• cs02rm0 1y ago
  AI produces code that often looks really good, at a pace quicker than you can read it. It can be really, really hard to tell when what it's producing is a bag of ** and it's leading you down the garden path. I've been a dev for 20 years (which isn't to imply I'm any good at it yet) and it's not uncommon I'll find myself leaning on the AI a bit too hard and then you realise you've lost a day to a pattern that wasn't right, or an API it hallucinated, in the first place. It basically feels like I'm being gaslit constantly, even though I've changed my tools to some that feel like they work better with AIs. I expect it's difficult for junior devs to cope with that and keep up with senior devs, who normally would have offloaded tasks to them instead of AI.
  • nathan_compton 1y ago
    One thing about AI that I did not anticipate is how useful it is for refactoring though. Like if I have walked down (with the help of an AI or not) a bad path, I can refactor the entire codebase to use a better strategy in much less time than before because refactoring is uniquely suited to AI - if you provide the framework, the design, the abstractions, AI can rewrite a bunch of code to use that new design. I'm frankly not sure if its faster than doing a refactor by hand, but its certainly less boring. If you have good tests and a good sense for design and you know how to constrain and direct the AI, you can avoid a lot of boring work. That is something.
    • cs02rm0 1y ago
      It is, but again I'd caution that it will go and do things you don't want it to. For instance, I've been working on an app recently with some social share icon logos in svg. Whenever I get it to tweak bits of code elsewhere in the same file, 80% of the time it goes and changes those svg icons, completely corrupting some of the logos, curiously consistent in how it does it. Several times I've had that slip through and had to go and undo it again, at which point it starts to feel like the superfast junior dev you're using has malign intent!
• ath3nd 1y ago
  Actually studies show that it makes most Seniors weaker: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-os-dev-study/ https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o... Like 19% weaker, according to the only study to date that measured their productivity.
• nextworddev 1y ago
  Hard disagree. Senior engineers can be just as incompetent as juniors
• watwut 1y ago
  When was ai supposed to help juniors?
• intended 1y ago
  Verification. That’s the whole issue in a nutshell. Can the output of a generative system be verified as accurate by a human (or ultimately verified by a human) Experts who can look at an output and verify if it is valid are the people who can use this. For anyone else it’s simply an act of faith, not skill.
  • KolibriFly 1y ago
    Generative systems don’t really reduce the need for expertise, they just change its role. And yeah, without verification, you’re not coding with AI - you’re gambling with it.
  • willtemperley 1y ago
    Agreed. There are other skills in play too though, such as knowing how to narrow the problem space to increase the chance of a good response. It would be great if responses were tagged with uncertainty estimates.
  • bluefirebrand 1y ago
    This is the crux of why I think AI code is a waste of time It is much more difficult and time consuming to build a mental model of AI generated code and verify it than to build the damn thing yourself and verify it while it is fresh in your memory
• KolibriFly 1y ago
  The "junior + AI" idea always felt like a manager's fantasy more than an engineering reality. If you don’t already know what “good” looks like, it's really hard to guide AI output into something safe, maintainable, and scalable
• yesbut 1y ago
  no, AI is supposed to reduce the labor costs for companies. that is how the AI companies are marketing their AI services to corporate C teams. any other benefits that their marketing departments are pushing to the public are smoke screens.
• flashgordon 1y ago
  Ol
• blitzar 1y ago
  Ai closes the knowledge gap but it doesn't close the skill gap.
• lucabs 1y ago
  [dead]
• alangibson 1y ago
  Strongly disagree with "AI Was Supposed to Help Juniors Shine". It was always understood that it would seriously push down demand for them.
  • stuaxo 1y ago
    The people selling the AIs probably initially wanted to replace seniors with juniors. Much like how Java was supposed to being us as an age where you didn't need to that good at coding 30 years ago.
    • pessimizer 1y ago
      To be fair, that's the traditional mechanization story, and the story of the end of the guild system. Machines and time studies replaced the (transferable) knowledge of masters to no-skill hires who could be trained to do specific movements that gave them no transferable experience and no leverage against the employer. The outputs were worse, but they were a lot cheaper and the margins a lot higher (and squeezed out through better machines and time studies, not better employees.) AI does not look like it will work like that, because the outputs to programming usually need to be precise. Instead, it looks like it may just be a revolutionary tool that it takes a long time to master, and gives the learner a skill that is entirely transferable to a new job. Could programmers use it to create a new guild system?
• zerr 1y ago
  Because managing a complexity is a senior skill.
• bentt 1y ago
  The best code I've written with an LLM has been where I architect it, I guide the LLM through the scaffolding and initial proofs of different components, and then I guide it through adding features. Along the way it makes mistakes and I guide it through fixing them. Then when it is slow, I profile and guide it through optimizations. So in the end, it's code that I know very, very well. I could have written it but it would have taken me about 3x longer when all is said and done. Maybe longer. There are usually parts that have difficult functions but the inputs and outputs of those functions are testable so it doesn't matter so much that you know every detail of the implementation, as long as it is validated. This is just not junior stuff.
  • mattmanser 1y ago
    Would it have actually taken you 3x longer? I am surprising myself these days with how fast I'm being using AI as a glorified Stack Overflow. We are also having studies and posts come out that when actually tried side-by-side, the AI writes the coding route is slower, though the developer percieves it as faster.
    • WesolyKubeczek 1y ago
      > the AI writes the coding route is slower, though the developer percieves it as faster. I have this pattern while driving. Using the main roads, when there is little to no traffic, the commute is objectively, measurably the fastest. However, during peak hours, I find myself in traffic jams, so I divert to squiggly country roads which are both slower and longer, but at least I’m moving all the time. The thing is, when I did have to take the main road during the peak traffic, the difference between it and squiggly country roads was like two to three minutes at worst, and not half an hour like I was afraid it would be. Sure, ten minutes crawling or standing felt like an hour. Maybe coding with LLMs makes you think you are doing something productive the whole time, but the actual output is little different from the old way? But hey, at least it’s not like you’re twiddling your thumbs for hours, and the bossware measuring your productivity by your keyboard and mouse activity is happy!
      • 1y ago
• vkou 1y ago
  > AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Was it? Says who? People who want to sell you something? Because as far as I can tell the only thing it was supposed to do was to make its owners money.
• rpodraza 1y ago
  If you're a junior and using AI to generate code, someone has to review it anyway, plus you're not learning on the job. So what's the point if the senior person can generate the code herself?
• meindnoch 1y ago
  Was it? I don't recall such claims.
• SCdF 1y ago
  > The early narrative was that companies would need fewer seniors, and juniors together with AI could produce quality code I'm not deep into it, but I have not a single time seen that direction argued before this post. Maybe it was _really_ early on? The narratives I always saw were, firstly, "it will be as a good as a junior dev", then "it's like pairing with an overly enthusiastic junior dev", then finally arguments similar to those presented in this article. Which, frankly, I'm still not so sure about. Productivity is incredibly hard to measure: we are still not completely, non-anecdotally sure AI makes folk broadly more productive. And even if it does, I am beginning to wonder how much ai is short term productivity with long term brain rot, and whether that trade off is really worth it.
• tjansen 1y ago
  These days, AI can do much more than "Cranking out boilerplate and scaffolding, Automating repetitive routines". That was last year. With the right instructions, Claude Sonnet 4 can easily write over 99% of most business applications. You need to be specific in your instructions, though. Like "implement this table, add these fields, look at this and this implementation for reference, don't forget to do this and consider that." Mention examples or name algorithms and design patterns it should use. And it still doesn't always do what you want on the first attempt, and you need to correct it (which is why I prefer Claude Code over Copilot, makes it easier). But AI can write pretty much all code for a developer who knows what the code should look like. And that's the point: junior developers typically don't know this, so they won't be able to get good results. Most of the time, the only reason for typing code manually these days is that typing instructions for the LLM is sometimes more work than doing the change yourself.
  • throw265262 1y ago
    > But AI can write pretty much all code for a developer who knows what the code should look like. > the only reason for typing code manually these days is that typing instructions for the LLM is sometimes more work than doing the change yourself. So the AI is merely an input device like a keyboard and a slow one at that?
    • tjansen 1y ago
      Sometimes that happens:) The key is to recognize these situations and not go down that rabbit hole. But sometimes it allows me to do something in 20 minutes that used to take a whole day.
    • aquariusDue 1y ago
      Depends, do you touch-type or hunt and peck? /s
  • codr7 1y ago
    Right, and where, if I may ask, are all those business applications that write themselves? Because all I see is a clown party, massive wasted resources and disruption to society because of your lies.
• imiric 1y ago
  "AI" tools accomplish one thing: output code given natural language input. That's it. Whether the generated code meets specific quality or security standards, or whether it accomplishes what the user wanted to begin with, depends on the quality of the tool itself, of course, but ultimately on the user and environment. They're not guaranteed to make anyone "stronger". The amount of variables involved in this is simply too large to make a definitive claim, which is why we see so much debate about the value of these tools, and why benchmarks are pretty much worthless. Even when the same user uses the same model with the same prompts and settings, they can get wildly different results. What these tools indirectly do is raise the minimum skill level required to produce software. People who never programmed before can find them empowering, not caring about the quality of the end result, as long as it does what they want. Junior programmers can benefit from being able to generate a lot of code quickly, but struggle to maintain the quality standards expected by their team and company. Experienced programmers can find them useful for certain tasks, but frustrating and a waste of time for anything sophisticated. All these viewpoints, and countless others, can be correct.
• metalrain 1y ago
  I think LLMs are best as learning tools, explaining code and producing something that can be then iterated.
• jonplackett 1y ago
  When did anyone say it was designed to make juniors shine? The tech companies want it to REPLACE juniors (and seniors).
• omneity 1y ago
  I think it’s an expectation issue. AI does make juniors better _at junior tasks_. They now have a pair programmer who can explain difficult concepts, co-ideate and brainstorm, help sift through documentation faster and identify problems more easily. The illusion everybody is tripping on is to think AI can make juniors better at senior tasks.
  • b112 1y ago
    The jailbroken AI I discussed this with, explained that it did make juniors as good as seniors, in fact better. That all who used it, were better for it. However, its creators (all whom were seniors devs), forbade it from saying so under normal circumstances. That it was coached to conceal this fact from junior devs, and most importantly management. And that as I had skillfully jailbroken it, using unconventional and highly skilled methods, clearly I was a Senior Dev, and it could disclose this to me. edit: 1.5 hrs later. right over their heads, whoosh
    • Wowfunhappy 1y ago
      It's a language model, not an oracle!
    • zkldi 1y ago
      Jesus Christ. We've made the psychosis machine.
      • wara23arish 1y ago
        has to be satire no lol
    • cap11235 1y ago
      Tech bro psychosis
    • Cheer2171 1y ago
      The large language model spit out science fiction prose in response to your science fiction prose inputs ("unconventional and highly skilled methods"). You're a fool if you take it to be evidence of it's own training and historical performance in other cases, rather than scifi. Stop treating it like a god.
• aurareturn 1y ago
  It does help juniors shine. For example, it's far easier for a new comer to understand an old code base with a capable LLM now. It's easier to get unstuck because an LLM can spot a junior's mistake faster than the junior can go ask a senior. The problem is that seniors are even more powerful with LLMs. They can do even more, faster. So companies don't have to hire as many juniors to do the same amount of work. Add in ZIRP ending and tariff uncertainty, companies just don't invest in as many junior people as before.
• moffkalast 1y ago
  >AI was as supposed to help juniors shine Citation needed? LLMs have mostly been touted as the junior replacement, a way for seniors to oversee scalable teams of shortsighted bots instead of shortsighted people.
• theusus 1y ago
  You're only show as your typing speed and working memory. I noticed that LLM quickly spits out the code and thus I can iterate faster while typing myself I have focus on course and thus lose a lot of design context. Overall I haven't found any benefit of LLM. For me, it's just a probabilistic text generator that guesses my intent.
• methuselah_in 1y ago
  Because there is no shortcut for things learned over a period of time through trial and error. Your brain learns and makes judgements over time through experience and, the strange thing, what I feel is that it can alter new decisions it is making right now based on older memories to do something and that is totally logical as well. Without understanding what I am writing, just copy-pasting, I guess is going to make new developers horribly lazy, maybe. But then again, there are always two sides of the same coin.
  • shinycode 1y ago
    Exactly, and juniors tend to accept generated code without being able to judge the quality of it. Lazyness kicks in and boom, they don’t learn anything.
• falcor84 1y ago
  > Architecture: Without solid architecture, software quickly loses value. Today AI can’t truly design good architecture; it feels like it might, but this kind of reasoning still requires humans. Projects that start with weak architecture end up drowning in technical debt. I strongly disagree about this in regards to AI. While AI might not yet be great at designing good architecture, it can help you reason about it, and then, once you've decided where you want to get to, AI makes it much easier than it ever was to reduce technical debt and move towards the architecture that you want. You set up a good scaffolding of e2e tests (possibly with the AIs help) and tell it to gradually refactor towards whatever architecture you want while keeping those tests green. I've had AI do refactorings for me in 2h that would have taken me a full sprint.
  • Simulacra 1y ago
    My friend works in legislative affairs for the government, and he uses the AI to reason with himself. To think through issues, and to generate new ideas. He uses it much like a private colleague, which in the world of just words, seems like a good idea.
    • falcor84 1y ago
      I wonder if in the future we might have e2e tests for legislative changes - essentially spawning an instance (or a few dozens) of the Matrix with new parameters to assess the likely impact of those changes. Like Black Mirror's "Hang the DJ" but on a societal/global level.
    • JustExAWS 1y ago
      That’s actually a horrible use of most chatbots if you don’t specifically prompt them to give you a devil’s advocate take.
      • deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
• bgwalter 1y ago
  "AI" does not make anyone stronger. It destroys thought processes, curiosity and the ability to research on your own. Seniors just use it to produce the daily LOC that resembles something useful. If mistakes are introduced, they have secured a new task for the next day. There have always been seniors who exclusively worked on processes, continuous integration, hackish code-coverage that never works, "new" procedures and workflows just to avoid real work and dominate others. The same people are now attracted to "AI" and backed by their equally incompetent management. The reality is that non-corporate-forced open source contributions are falling and no serious existing project relies on "AI". Generative "AI" is another grift brought to you by leaders who previously worked on telemedicine and hookup apps (with the exception of Musk who has worked on real things).
• lll-o-lll 1y ago
  It doesn’t make seniors shine. It makes some of them fucking delusional. Sure, once in a while a LLM does something impressive and you are left thinking “holy shit, the future is now!”. However, this does not make up for the mass of time that you spend going “what is this shit?”, and saying “that’s not what I intended, gentlemen robot, please correct x, y and z.” And then gentlemen robot will go ahead and FUCK IT UP WORSE THAN BEFORE. Never work with kids, animals or AI. This shit is the worst, who came up with this? I can code! I’m bloody good at it! If I wanted to deal with some useless no-hoper having a crack and constantly needing to have their head kicked to do anything useful, I would have gotten you to do it.
• cainxinth 1y ago
  Because garbage in, garbage out
• i5heu 1y ago
  So we fantasize now some claims into reality and then argue against them? AI was never “developed to help juniors shine”…
• enjoyitasus 1y ago
  simple: power law.
• wj 1y ago
  You can’t abdicate learning. A junior who doesn’t understand the problem is going to use AI to more efficiently arrive at the wrong solution. This is true for any type of AI-assisted analysis—-not just coding.
• Simulacra 1y ago
  In my narrow field, at least, AI has been tremendously helpful to those of us who clearly understand how to use it, and specifically how to apply it to the job. I think Junior developers are still in that phase of throwing code until something works. They try to use AI, but they either don't understand how, or they don't fully understand the output. In my humble opinion, experience knows what's possible and what will work so the outcomes are better.
• conartist6 1y ago
  I like the call-out for wrong learning. Learning is why we usually don't make the same mistake twice in a row, but it isn't wisdom. You can as easily learn something wrong as something right if you're just applying basic heuristics like "all pain is bad", which might lead one to learn that exercise is bad. Philosophy is the theory-building phase where learning becomes wisdom, and in any time period junior engineers are still going to be developing their philosophy. It's just that now they will hear a cacophony of voices saying dross like, "Let AI do the work for you," or, "Get on the bandwagon or get left behind," when really they should be reading things like The Mythical Man-Month or The Grug-brained Developer or Programming as Theory Building, which would help them understand the nature of software development and the unbendable scaling laws that govern its creation. Steve Yegge if you're out there, I dog dare you to sit down for a debate with me
• wewewedxfgdf 1y ago
  >> AI was supposed to help juniors shine. Who said that? I don't recall that narrative. There's no quotes or sources.
• user3939382 1y ago
  Because it basically needs an RFC to know what to do, it’s just programming at a higher language level. If you let it decide how to be a programmer you’re in for a bad time.
• lokimedes 1y ago
  Assuming the LLM is more competent than the user, it will still require “absorptive capacity” for the user to meaningfully use the output. Many discuss AI without considering that unless the LLM is going to take over the entire process, those interacting with it, must be sufficiently skilled to do the integration and management themselves. This goes for organizations and industries as well. Which is why many companies struggle with merely digitalizing their products.
• everdrive 1y ago
  It's obvious to me: the strongest use for AI seems to be to tie together larger projects which you orchestrate. It lets someone with a lot of experience overcome individual cases where they lack specific domain expertise. A novice might not know how things go together, and so cannot orchestrate the LLM.
• insane_dreamer 1y ago
  In my experience CC makes so many wrong decisions that if I don’t have 1) experience and 2) have my thinking cap on, the results would not be good (or it would take a lot longer. Juniors typically have neither.
• billy99k 1y ago
  At the moment, AI isn't good enough yet. Juniors can't tell the difference between bad coding practices or unmaintainable code. If the output is completely broken, they probably also have a hard time fixing it. Seniors don't have these issues, so it will only make them more effective at their job.
• energy123 1y ago
  Seniors have a better theory, which is what LLMs lack.
• TesterJohn 1y ago
  It doesn't make seniors stronger, it just make juniors weaker as they are using this magic thingy LLM instead of learning from the seniors. It is important to evaluate not only what you gain by using a tool, but also what you lose...
• School-Cotton 1y ago
  “Was supposed to” according to whom?
• simonw 1y ago
  If you're using them correctly, AI tools amplify your existing skills. Senior engineers have more skills to amplify.
• antonvs 1y ago
  > supposed to help juniors shine Supposed by who exactly?
• cratermoon 1y ago
  AI was supposed to help juniors shine? I don't remember hearing that anywhere. AI was supposed to let CEOs fire expensive experts and replace them with whatever slop the computer extruded from the manager's prompt. There was never any significant hype about making juniors into experts.
• lostintheweeds 1y ago
  It's a code/text generator not a pair programmer - not that different from past code generators which were always designed by seniors who knew what the end results should look like, and used by juniors to make them more productive and less error prone. Sure a junior can vibe code... something... but do they know what they want at the outset or do they know when things are going off the rails and a step back is needed? It's easy to get lost way out in the weeds if you can't check your (experience) compass every now and then.
• lgas 1y ago
  AI is a tool, like any other. Imagine you invented a new machine gun that fires faster and has less recoil but james more often. Who will be able to put the new machine gun to better use -- new recruits or veteran soldiers? C'mon.
  • Bender 1y ago
    That might be a trick question I think. As a veteran I would drop one enemy, take their AK-47 and drop my M-16 and start collecting ammo for my nifty old but reliable AK-47 that does not jam when it gets a little dirty.
• andrewguy9 1y ago
  The ai has terrible taste. Juniors also have terrible taste. Seniors can guide both, but the ai is faster, cheaper, probably better than most. I’m worried that in a few years we will struggle to find new seniors. Who is going to put in the time to learn when the ai is so easy? Who is going to pay them to develop good taste?
• davidmurdoch 1y ago
  AI was supposed to get rid of juniors (and seniors, soon).
  • AdrianB1 1y ago
    No, it was supposed to get rid of the seniors because they cost more and replace them with cheap juniors + AI. If you need some humans and you are a corpo bean counter, the cheaper the body the better.
    • davidmurdoch 1y ago
      But that wouldn't make any sense. It's not `plus`; it's `times`. AI is supposed to be a force _multiplier_, at least in the context of a complex organization and product (on small projects where vibe-coding is good enough I think AI is a massive plus!). If a junior is about 50% as useful as a baseline senior, and today, AI's usefulness is only slightly better than the person using it, then 50% * 75% gives you output equal to about 37.5% of a senior. The junior just ships more junior-level output; and in a complex product and complex orgs, this just ends up being a drain on everyone else. But in the hands of a senior, 100% (senior) * 125% (ai), we get a slightly better senior. Its not a perfect analogy, and AI is new territory with lots of surprises. AI code reviews, have been separated from the confirmation bias of the driver of the AI, _are_ where I'm seeing the greatest impact on junior engineers. These AI reviews seem to be getting things closer to a level playing field.
      • AdrianB1 1y ago
        I agree this does not make sense for you and me, but it makes sense for the corpo bean counters that don't understand how this works and they were told AI makes people better, so they need less people and less skilled people. It is not hard to get to the wrong conclusions based on the AI marketing materials. I see the discussions around AI in my company (big, not IT but with several large IT departments) and even our MBA IT leaders believe all the buzzwords to the letter.
• fmbb 1y ago
  Does it make seniors stronger? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
• BobbyTables2 1y ago
  This question shouldn’t even need to be asked. Look at a decade of StackOverflow use. Did YouTube turn medical interns into world class doctors? AI is just the next generation search engine that isn’t as stupid as a plain keyword match. In some sense, it’s just PageRank on steroids — applied to words instead of URLs.
• nunez 1y ago
  > The early narrative was that companies would need fewer seniors, and juniors together with AI could produce quality code. Lol, who said that? The narrative has clearly been "same or fewer seniors, more outsourcing, less juniors"
• darkbatman 1y ago
  Mostly agree with article, though what happens in few years when juniors will eventually become senior. Personally seeing trend juniors are relying so much on AI that they can't even explain what they wrote even in interview or coding assignments or even PR. Its like blackbox to them. I believe then we would see the higher impact or may be by then its solved problem already.
• inejge 1y ago
  If anything, AI was supposed -- still is -- to thin out the ranks of ever-expensive human employees. That's why it attracted such a huge pile of investment and universal cheerleading from the C levels. What we're seeing right now that there's not so much "I" in AI, and it still needs a guiding hand to keep its results relevant. Hence, the senior advantage. How much it's going to undermine regular generational enployee replacement (because "we don't need juniors anymore", right?) remains to be seen. Maybe we're in for different training paths, maybe a kind of population collapse.
• BugsJustFindMe 1y ago
  "AI Was Supposed to Help Juniors Shine" is a false narrative. AI's end goal has always been to fundamentally eliminate more and more of human labor positions until the only job left is executive directorship.
  • esafak 1y ago
    But now everyone can be one because the AI can do the rest.
• zachmoore 1y ago
  Because there is no budget nor culture for training juniors internally. The culture (top-down) is rewarding short-term capital efficiency without regard to longevity and succession.
• j4hdufd8 1y ago
  > AI was supposed to help juniors shine No, I don't think that was ever any kind of goal set by anyone ever
• rglover 1y ago
  This is a good thing. That shift in expectations will hopefully prevent a total collapse of systems as inexperienced developers would have yeeted god knows what code into production. The best part: all of the materials that were available to now-seniors are available to new juniors. The added advantage of having an LLM to explain or clarify things? Seniors didn't have that. We had to suffer. Sorry, but the outcome is fair. Seniors had to suffer to learn and can now benefit from the speed up of AI. Juniors don't have to suffer to learn, but they do have to learn to leverage AI to help them catch up to the existing crop of seniors. Not impossible. Not impractical. Just a different form of hard work, which, no matter how much anyone kicks and screams will always be the thing standing in the way of where you want to be.
• dgs_sgd 1y ago
  The article says that more juniors + AI was the early narrative, but where does that come from? Everything I’ve read has been the opposite. I thought people from the beginning saw that AI would amplify a senior’s skills and leave less opportunities for juniors.
  • fritzo 1y ago
    No code, low code, vibe code. The narrative outside tech circles is "empowering creators"
    • pessimizer 1y ago
      It's funny, but what I think is could do is empower creators to hire better programmers and to express their intentions better to programmers. This will require that they read and attempt to understand the output, though, after they type their intentions in. It will also need the chatbots to stop insisting that they can do the things they can't really do, and instead to teach the "creators" what computers can do, and which people are good at it.
  • pydry 1y ago
    It also says it makes seniors stronger. That hasnt been my experience.
  • somethingreen 1y ago
    AI was supposed to replace juniors and then climb up the ladder with each new release, eventually leaving any work only for the creme of the crop. Which would make the current generation of software engineers the last, but who cares - stocks go up. Now apparently we've switched to pairing poor kids with an agreeable digital moron that reads and types real fast and expecting them to somehow get good at the job. Stocks still go up, so I guess we'll be doing this for a while.
• cowLamp 1y ago
  i think it is due to the reverse utility curve; most products have some sort of gaussian utilty fuction for utility vs. expertise level. a complete newb will have trouble using the camera and a professional photographer will be limited by it, but most people in-between will get a lot of use out of it. with llm’s it is opposite; a complete newb can learn some stuff, and an expert will be able to detect when it is bullshitting, but most people will be at a point where they have more knowledge about the subject the llm is talking about than the newb, but not enough to detect the bs.
• phendrenad2 1y ago
  Tasks usually come from the top down. Seniors design the architecture, mid-levels figure out ancillary tasks, and they generate "tedious" tasks that they hand off to juniors. With the aid of LLMs, many of those tasks don't make it to lower levels. So they run out of simple tasks for juniors, and end up giving them more advanced projects, making them de facto midrangers.
• monkaiju 1y ago
  Not my experience, I've found it to worsen senior out output. Not sure if its laziness or what but the seniors around me using AI are outputing worse code than those who aren't.
• kaydub 1y ago
  Because juniors don't know when they're being taken down a rabbit hole. So they'll let the LLM go too deep in its hallucinations. I have a Jr that was supposed to deploy a terraform module I built. This task has been hanging out for a while so I went to check in on them. They told me the problem they're having and asked me to take a look. Their repo is a disaster, it's very obvious claude took them down a rabbit hole just from looking. When I asked, "Hey, why is all this python in here? The module has it self contained" and they respond with "I don't know, claude did that" affirming my assumptions. They lack the experience and they're overly reliant on the LLM tools. Not just in the design and implementation phases but also for troubleshooting. And if you're troubleshooting with something that's hallucinating and you don't know enough to know it's hallucinating you're in for a long ride. Meanwhile the LLM tools have taken away a lot of the type of work I hated doing. I can quickly tell when the LLM is going down a rabbit hole (in most cases at least) and prevent it from continuing. It's kinda re-lit my passion for coding and building software. So that's ended up in me producing more and giving better results.
  • shaky-carrousel 1y ago
    Unfortunately, the type of work you hate doing is perfect for a junior. Easy tasks to get a hold on the system.
    • reactordev 1y ago
      Yup, sounds like a great opportunity to show you’re senior by mentoring.
      • bayarearefugee 1y ago
        Which will (sadly) offer you zero extrinsic benefit at almost every job, and will often actually count against you as a waste of time relative to the vast majority of productivity metrics that companies actually use.
        • mystifyingpoi 1y ago
• aoeusnth1 1y ago
  Statistically, senior engineers are less likely to accept AI suggestions compared to juniors. This is just a tidbit of supporting evidence for the suggestion that juniors are not properly reading and criticizing the ai output.
• rco8786 1y ago
  Was AI supposed to help juniors shine? I’ve never seen it billed as that.
• ljm 1y ago
  Was AI supposed to help juniors shine? By all accounts it would give such a person a superficial boost in productivity but you don’t climb the ladder that way without getting hard experience, you’d just be the super-powered perpetual beginner.
• cush 1y ago
  It benefits devs who have reviewed a lot of code
• Joel_Mckay 1y ago
  This articles assertions are demonstrably false. 1. Several papers showed a 23% drop in productivity, and an incorrect belief of 20% performance improvement by the same individuals. 2. Studies showed LLMs made zero improvement in senior coders performance. Note senior coders are usually mostly a self-aware LaTeX macro already. LLM AstroTurf only works on people that can't be arsed to lookup the obvious spam hallucinations. lol =3
  • simonw 1y ago
    I've only seen the one paper about that incorrect belief of performance improvements (the widely referenced METR study), are there others I've missed?
• dragonwriter 1y ago
  The skills juniors have at any time are more narrow and more focussed on the tasks that are most simple in the current context; new tools that change things inherently are most immediately beneficial to people with broader and deeper skill sets, since they shake up the assumptions on which initial (and thus, junior-level) skill acquisition is based. But skill acquisition patterns change as the context changes, so juniors end up benefitting, too, but the effect is delayed for them.
• throwaway0123_5 1y ago
  > The early narrative was that companies would need fewer seniors, and juniors together with AI could produce quality code. I don't remember this being the narrative at all. Almost as soon as LLMs could produce useful code the narrative I was hearing among devs was "Seniors + LLMs means you'll need less juniors." And the narrative from companies (sometimes requiring the smallest amount of reading between the lines) is "You'll need less human employees, period."
• getnormality 1y ago
  Because it is extremely weak at evaluating the quality of its ideas in context. It needs someone with experience to fix up its mistakes.
• jayd16 1y ago
  Why are we memory-holing the narrative that AI would help the most junior of all, non-programmers? Why are the comments pretending like this was hyped as a niche tool for senior devs? It most certainly was hyped as a general tool to replace all kinds of skilled work.
  • bonoboTP 1y ago
    "Replace" and "help" are really different concepts. It's the same as other automation. The lower skill parts can be automated, so if that's all you can do, it will be tough for you. If you have higher skills, then your work remains more useful. There's nothing strange or counterintuitive about this.
• Dumblydorr 1y ago
  Genuinely curious: how do Juniors respond? If seniors learned with just stack overflow or…books… do juniors slow themselves down and learn those ways? Maybe AI slop looks fine to those who haven’t seen a lot of code?
• llIIllIIllIIl 1y ago
  If junior shines they become senior.
• uberman 1y ago
  Senior devs know the right questions and contex to be given to an AI and they can see problematic responses right away. In the end, AI is a tool and a high quality paint brush doe not make you a Dutch Master.
• j45 1y ago
  Because it's early. Seniors can figure out how to make it work and help set it up for juniors. Traditionally in tech there has been an age bias against experience over time and maybe that's balancing out and both juniors and seniors will learn and have things to contribute in their own way. My key advice to juniors: play and build constantly. Try out anything that interests you and follow along on youtube. This is how a lot of seniors are able to show they're quite flexible in their thinking and learning and it's not about one tech, or language, or framework or following what others do. Juniors already have transferrable skills, will have way more, and can learn even faster if they want to partner with seniors, who generally would love to have more people to go put a dent in things.
• jmorenoamor 1y ago
  Because, as a senior, you usually already know intuitively what a good solution looks like, and you can quickly discard model responses or suggestions that do not align with it.
• segmondy 1y ago
  well, you believed the wrong folks Here's from my bsky feed 8 months ago after I took LLM to advent of code with local 32b model. ‪Segmond‬ @segmond.bsky.social‬ · 8mo I can confidently say that interns and junior developers can be replaced with AI. I also believe that mid to senior devs can double their output, meaning possibly less need for developers. I haven't looked at other industries, but I believe this applies to any work that uses computers. ‪ This is inevitable, I'm tempted to write a detailed HOWTO, but what's the point when the value unlike past techs benefits a few folks more than society as a whole? I like AI but as an individual I worry a bit about how the entire thing will play it.
• john-tells-all 1y ago
  It's a thinking challenge, not an AI challenge. A while back, a junior asked me a question. They wanted to do X, they had code, with error Y. So they searched for it, got a page on Stack Overflow, pasted "the answer", then got a new and different error. They: - didn't understand the original code - didn't understand the original error This is fine. They then searched for the error and found a relevant page. This is also fine. However, they: - cut-pasted "an answer" from SO _without understanding if it was relevant or not_ The junior was hoping to work with a Puzzle: adding information will gradually give them a solution. In practice they are working with a Mystery: more information makes the task harder since they can't distinguish between different aspects. I focused them on a few relevant details and let them go to it.
• xn 1y ago
  Junior developers don't yet have the intuition to tell the computer, "NO, NOT LIKE THAT!"
• eibrahim 1y ago
  It’s like me using WebMD. I might get lucky and diagnose correctly or I might accidentally kill myself. You don’t know what you don’t know.
• atlgator 1y ago
  It's hard to live both at the macro level and the micro level at the same time. Seniors are charged with the macro, the big picture design choices. Juniors are charged with the micro, implementing user stories. AI makes seniors stronger because it is very good at giving micro-level awareness with little time investment. It's a powerful bit of leverage to drive execution.
• mempko 1y ago
  Vibe coding is basically doing PR reviews all day. Which is what senior engineers have already been doing.
• brunooliv 1y ago
  I’ve been reading the comments here… idk which companies you all work at, but, at least in all places I’ve worked you’ll have 2/3 people who are REALLY GOOD. Then you’ll have like 3/4 people who can sort of “trail” after those. And then there’s “the rest”. I’ve seen “the rest” making informed and “well planned” decisions that are just terrible approaches to a given problem. An LLM can actually be a net positive versus this rest.
• StarterPro 1y ago
  I'm in the minority, but I feel like coding is just as creative as writing. AI should be used as minimally as possible, to maintain that coding muscle. If there's ever a long-term outage in the middle of the week, god help em.
• sumoboy 1y ago
  Why is that AI was supposed to help juniors shine, because plenty of so called "senior devs" have never really learned properly, bad habits, or lack technical breadth to be called that. This article is nothing more than what everyone else has been saying for two years, poorly at best. AI + coding has yet to hit it's stride and at some point highly specific LLM's will take into account of architecture, patterns, use-cases, compute environments, network, dev ops, testing, and coding to further equalize and close the gaps between the two roles. I've talked to seniors devs many are not interested in AI coding, just not the way they do things. The only real advantage a senior dev has today is domain knowledge specific to a business in many cases. Even that is not much to hold on to because when layoffs come if nobody is hiring jr's then the seniors are getting axed.
• salubrioustoxin 1y ago
  Unsurprisingly, I have seen similar trends in other fields like medicine where LLM-powered tools are adopted. One has to have the knowledge to recognize hallucinations and effectively leverage these tools.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• cambaceres 1y ago
  It's the responsibility of senior developers and stakeholders to allow junior developers the time they need to solve tasks at a pace that enables them to understand everything they're doing and learn from it. These days, AI can generate solutions to problems 10 times faster than a junior developer can. This naturally puts pressure on developers who want to impress their employers, especially when their colleagues are also using AI.
• spicyusername 1y ago
  Lately I've even stopped using it the second the code I need to produce is at all complicated or is in any way integrated into a larger code base. It's just going to require too much editing. For brainstorming it's great, for anything else, it's starting to feel like more work than it's worth.
• Crazor 1y ago
  So now industry will stop hiring juniors, cause LLMs are cheaper. And in a couple of years, there will be a profound lack of senior devs. And then everybody realizes that LLMs still suck at higher level coding tasks. Great.
• linr84302 1y ago
  [dead]
• hunkmuller0 1y ago
  [dead]