5 ms·

We're in the wrong moment

58 points by chilipepperhott 1y ago

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
almosthere 1y ago
[flagged]
- LordGrignard 1y ago
  Blud what
- milesskorpen 1y ago
  What?
  - wseqyrku 1y ago
    I think they have been hacked
Hannah203 1y ago
[dead]
Ericson2314 1y ago
I have 2000s web nostalgia, but I think the modern dot com and onward software SV was, frankly, mostly up to stupid shit. Not something to romanticize Good things to look forward to are: - Lean and mathlib revolutionizing math - Typst replacing latex and maybe some adobe prosuc - Fuschia/Redox/wasi replacing Unix - non-professional-programmers finally learning programming en mass I think the latter is maybe the most profound. Tech may not grow at a break-neck pace, but erasing the programmer vs computer illiterate dichotomy will mean software can way the world in much less Kafkaesque ways.
- Pamar 1y ago
  I think that what erased "programmer vs computer illiterate" dichotomy was BASIC in the 80s. I've met lots of "digital natives" and they seem to use technology as a black box and click/touch stuff at random until it sorta works but they do not very good at creating at mental model of why something is behaving in a way which is not what was expected and verify their own hypothesis (i.e. "debugging").
  - maegul 1y ago
    Agreed. And I feel it fair to argue that this is the intended interface between proprietary software and its users, categorically. And more so with AI software/tools, and IMO frighteningly so. I don’t know where the open models people are up to, but as a response to this I’d wager they’ll end up playing the Linux desktop game all over again. All of which strikes at one of the essential AI questions for me: do you want humans to understand the world we live in or not? Doesn’t have to be individually, as groups of people can be good at understanding something beyond an individual. But a productivity gain isn’t on it’s a sufficient response to this question. Interestingly, it really wasn’t long ago that “understanding the full computing stack” was a topic around here (IIRC). It’d be interesting to see if some “based” “vinyl player programming” movement evolved in response to AI in which using and developing tech stacks designed to be comprehensively comprehensible is the core motivation. I’d be down.
- righthand 1y ago
  > non-professional-programmers finally learning programming en mass I don’t think this is what you think it is. It’s more like non-professional-programmers hacking together all the applications they wanted to hack together before. The Llm is just the glue. IMO, they are NOT learning programming.
  - MiiMe19 1y ago
    this exactly. No one is getting smarter or learning anything, the bar to make something just no longer requires you to be competent.
  - 1y ago
TheDong 1y ago
I identify with this, though I'm further along the path. Coding was incredibly fun until working in capitalist companies got involved. It was then still fairy fun, but tinged by some amount of "the company is just trying to make money, it doesn't care that the pricing sucks and it's inefficient, it's more profitable to make mediocre software with more features than really nail and polish any one part" Adding on AI impacts how fun coding is for me exactly how they say, and that compounds with company's misaligned incentives. ... I do sometimes think maybe I'm just burned out though, and I'm looking for ways to rationalize it, rather than doing the healthy thing and quitting my job to join a cult-like anti-technology commune.
- maegul 1y ago
  I resonate. For me I’m vaguely but persistently thinking about a career change, wondering if I can find something of more tangible “real world” value. An essential basis of which being the question of whether any given tech job just doesn’t hold much apparent “real world value”.
zkmon 1y ago
It may not be that hard to see where this is all going. At least with some precision. Think of global arms race, or industrialization. Humans and this planet did not need any of that. Planet did not need it, because when you look at these cities from a flight, they look exactly like wounds that disrupt the continuity of greenery and terrain. Cities and industries don't belong to this planet. And no need to say much about the silly arms race and business-driven tech that humans have. AI is just one of those arms races that we imposed on ourselves, with desire to dominate others, or to protect ourselves from such domination. It is irreversible, just like the other things. It survives by using the same tactic of a cheap salesman - tell the first buyer that they can dominate the world, and then tell next buyers that they need to protect themselves from the first one. We transformed our lifestyles to live with those unnecessary, business/politics driven "advancements". The saga continues. BTW, electronic calculators, when they came up, did a similar thing, erasing the fun out of calculations by hand.
- noduerme 1y ago
  All of life is an arms race. Look at fungi vs. bacteria. All those grasses in the fields and trees in the forests got there by outcompeting other organisms. We're actually the only species which can reason about our resource consumption as a whole, and which has a chance to do something about it. But while we find forests beautiful, they're a blight on grasslands, which are a blight on mosses, which are a blight on plain old rocks. What's beautiful is complexity, what's ugly is the destruction of complexity. That's why we find the destruction of forests to be repellent. Because we appreciate the more complex over the less complex. Possibly because complexity is the universe's way of observing itself. None of that means that our own complexity is necessarily wicked or irrelevant. It may just be a natural stage in the evolution of a planet. Grassland had 3 billion years to change, and it largely stayed the same. What's a couple thousand years of us blowing shit up, really?
  - zkmon 1y ago
    Great points. Thank you. I realized (just after posting) that the wound part is not well-defined. Any abrupt change could be seen as a wound. But we need to define "progress" as species. Grasslands, trees and dolphins seem to have defined their progress as better adaptation helped by their organic evolution, which contributed to their ultimate goal of reproduction via survival. How is human race defining their progress? Since we are just one of the animal species, the root goal remains as reproduction. Instead of waiting for our biological evolution to enhance our survival (and thus reproduction), maybe we are augmenting human abilities with artificial means which is quicker. But then the artificial augmentations could become you, replacing whatever your essence was. A weapon in your hand and AI chip in your head could make you a different beast. We can argue that even without such tools, human is mostly made up of bacterial colonies dictating human thought and life. But we accepted that as our identity. Now the artificial implements are taking up our identity. This is not natural and that is what is wicked. Also arms race not same as how species out-competed each other. Our arms race and most of what we call as tech progress is spawned by competition internal to our species, not for competing with other species. Universe did not favor complexity. Universe destroys order and moves towards more entropy. Life is something that goes against this. Life probably was required to trap Sun's energy so that Earth can cool itself. In geologic time scale, yes, a couple thousand years is puny. But it also indicates a rapid change. Most rapid changes lead to extinction events.
snayan 1y ago
Having gone through a bit of a crisis of meaning personally lately, this article resonates deeply. I would encourage the author to look inward and question the beliefs that got them here. I'd argue you didn't lose the joy of coding, you lost the illusion that coding made you real, that it made you you.
- uhhhd 1y ago
  This is wise
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  I came to the same conclusion after 40+ years of programming: better if you come to that realisation earlier. Still love coding though, but I leave the paid work to my colleagues and llms: I just code for fun these days. I also write for fun and find it pretty similar, feeling and satisfaction wise.
  - dimator 1y ago
    But, what about the graduating senior who, yeah started because they love the craft, but also need a way to pay the bills for a few decades of their life?
- leptons 1y ago
  There definitely are times that I lose the "joy of coding" and it has nothing to do with any illusions, it has everything to do with the kind of programming tasks I have to work on. Greenfield projects are the best, tech debt is the worst. Working on fun stuff is just fun.
  - snayan 1y ago
    That's a wonderful place to be. I'm not suggesting that the joy of coding is tied to illusions for everyone, just appears to be more to the story in the case of the author based on his framing.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
doug_durham 1y ago
This seems to romanticize the past. I've been doing this for 40 years and I don't see that much has changed. I would code even if I didn't get paid for it. That said I've always seen writing code as a means to an end. I use GenAI every day to write code, and it brings pure joy when there's boiler plate that I don't need to write so I can focus on the fun stuff. There is zero value in me writing yet another Python argparse routine. I've done it and I've learn everything I'm ever going to learn about it. Let me get on to the stuff that I don't know how to do.
- spockz 1y ago
  Okay I get the desire of not wanting to do repetitive stuff. It appears doing this with an llm scratches your itch. Before the same - focusing on the intrinsic complexity instead of the accidental - could be achieved by using libraries, toolkits, frameworks, better compiler (plugins), or “better” languages. What plagues me about LLMs is that all that generated code is still around in the project making reviews harder as well s understanding the whole program source. What is in there that makes you prefer this mechanism instead of the abstractions that have been increasingly available since forever?
  - seer 1y ago
    Isn't this compiled languages vs writing pure machine code argument all over again? The compiler produces a metric shit ton of code that I don't see when I'm writing C++ code. And don't get me started on TypeScript/Clojure - the amount of code that gets written underneath is mindbogglingly staggering, yet I don't see it, for me the code is "clean". And I'm old enough to remember the tail end of the MachineCode -> CompiledCode transition, and have certainly lived through CompiledCode -> InterpretedCode -> TranspiledCode ones. There were certainly people who knew the ins and outs of the underlying technology who produced some stunningly fast and beautiful code, but the march of progress was inevitable and they were gradually driven to obscurity. This recent LLM step just feels like more of the same. *I* know how to write an optimized routine that the LLM will stumble to do cleanly, but back in the day lots of assembler wizards were doing some crazy stuff, stuff that I admired but didn't have the time to replicate. I imagine in the next 10-20 years we will have Devs that _only_ know English, are trained in classical logic and have flame wars about what code exactly would their tools generate given various sentence invocations. And people would benchmark and investigate the way we currently do about JIT compilation and CPU caching - very few know how it actually works but the rest don't have to, as long as the machine produces the results we want. Just one more step on the abstraction ladder. The "Mars" trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson had very cool extrapolations where this all could lead, technologically, politically, social and morally. LLMs didn't exists when he was writing it, but he predicted it anyway.
analog31 1y ago
>>> The joy of coding for me was literally the process of coding. Maybe I was lucky. For me, the joy was the power of coding. Granted, I'm not employed as a coder. I'm a scientist, and I use coding as a problem solving tool. Nothing I write goes directly into production. What's gone is the feeling that coding is a special elite skill. With that said, I still admire and respect the real software developers, because good software is more than code.
weavejester 1y ago
"I’m not sure if anyone else feels this way, but with the introduction of generative AI, I don’t find coding fun anymore. It’s hard to motivate myself to code knowing that a model can do it much quicker. The joy of coding for me was literally the process of coding." I experimented with GPT-5 recently and found its capabilities to be significantly inferior to that of a human, at least when it came to coding. I was trying to give it an optimal environment, so I set it to work on a small JavaScript/HTML web application, and I divided the task into small steps, as I'd heard it did best under those circumstances. I was impressed overall by how far the technology has come, but it produced a number of elementary errors, such as putting JavaScript outside the script tags. As the code grew, there was also no sense that it had a good idea of how to structure the codebase, even when I suggested it analyze and refactor. So unless there are far more capable models out there, we're not at the stage where generative AI can match a human. In general I find current model to have broad but shallow thinking. They can draw on many sources, which is extremely useful, but seem to have problems reasoning things through in depth. All this is to say that I don't find the joy of coding to have gone at all. In fact, there's been a number of really thorny problems I've had to deal with recently that I'd love to have side-stepped, but due to the currently limitations of LLMs I had to solve them the old-fashioned way.
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  I experimented with GPT-5 recently GPT-5 what? The GPT-5 models range from goofily stupid to brilliant. If you let it select the model automatically, which is the case by default, it will tend to lean towards the former.
  - weavejester 1y ago
    I was using GitHub Copilot Pro with VS Code, and the agent was labelled "GPT-5". Is this a particularly poor version of the model? I also briefly tried out some of the other paid-for models, but mostly worked with GPT-5.
    - spenczar5 1y ago
      Frankly, yes. The models are one part of the story. But the software around it matters at least as much: what tools does the model have access to, like bash or just file reading or (as in your example!) just a cache of files visited by the IDE (!). How does the software decide what extra context to provide to the model, how does it record past learnings from conversations and failed test runs (if at all!) and how are those fed in. And of course, what are the system prompts. None of this is about the model; its all "plain old" software, and is the stuff around the model. Increasingly, that's where the quality differences lie. I am sorry to say but Copilot is just sort of shoddy in this regard. I like Claude, some people like Codex, there are a bunch of options. But my main point is - its probably not about the model, but about the products built on the models, which can vary wildly in quality.
beej71 1y ago
The fun is still there. I'm relearning Rust and generative AI is really useful to help with understanding concepts and improving code. But I'm still the one understanding and improving. Still an infinite amount to learn and do. It's still not hard to have more skill than an AI. Of course AI can solve all the dumbbell problems you get in school. They're just there to build muscle. Robots can lift weights better than you, too, but that doesn't mean there's no value in you doing it.
- quirino 1y ago
  It's Beej from the guides! I really appreciated the perspective you put forward here: https://beej.us/guide/bglcs/html/split/use-of-ai.html#ai-and-the-jobs-market https://beej.us/guide/bglcs/html/split/use-of-ai.html#ai-and....
- imiric 1y ago
  > It's still not hard to have more skill than an AI. Eh, today, maybe, and within specific domains. It's far from certain that this will remain true 5 or 10 years from now. The capability of these tools has improved greatly even compared to a year ago, so it's not far fetched to imagine that they will continue to gain ground. > Of course AI can solve all the dumbbell problems you get in school. They're just there to build muscle. Robots can lift weights better than you, too, but that doesn't mean there's no value in you doing it. That's a strange analogy. Technology, by definition, exists to facilitate human work. Relying on it has the opposite effect of "building muscle". "Muscles", in fact, atrophy the more we rely on technology. Doing the work without technology can certainly be valuable. But it's a personal value appreciated at most by a niche community of people. The actual market value of the work collapses once the product becomes a commodity. This is the effect of "AI" tools on software. The quality of the fast and cheap version of the product is still inferior to the artisan product, but a) this can only improve, and b) most of the market can't tell the difference.
  - beej71 1y ago
    > It's far from certain that this will remain true 5 or 10 years from now. I agree with this statement. But I also firmly believe that if AI gets good enough to replace software developers en masse, it will be good enough for basically everything and the global economy will collapse. > Relying on it has the opposite effect of "building muscle". "Muscles", in fact, atrophy the more we rely on technology. I also agree with that statement, but I'm not arguing to rely on it entirely, but to use it to become better at bigger things than it can possibly imagine. Yes, there will be tons of boilerplate code and those jobs will go the way of the dodo. But half the businesses in the world are better than the other half, and they didn't get there by doing the exact same thing as everyone else. Thought experiment: if there were an AI everyone had access to that was capable of designing and implementing a business that would crush all competition, how would you make your business succeed?
MiiMe19 1y ago
I relate to this on a level that I have felt before. I went from wanting to program for literally any company just as long as I could write code to just wanting to finish my degree and make enough money to live in the middle of nowhere with no internet access for the rest of my life.
vydra 1y ago
Its definitely much harder to get into the industry than it was a few years ago and if its coding you were after, you may indeed be disappointed. But give Software Engineering a try! We need to rewrite many of our critical systems and we are afraid to do so primarily to the lack of truly skilled software engineers. IMHO, the AI agents are creating time for us to study what really matters. I would start with Modern Software Engineering by Dave Farley. DM me directly if you want to chat on this topic. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvydra/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvydra/
jandrewrogers 1y ago
I still enjoy coding. AI mostly doesn’t produce adequate quality or correctness for the type of code I enjoy writing. There are several domains where AI is worse than useless because training data doesn’t exist. Obviously my experience doesn’t generalize but writing software is a vast, unbounded domain. If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod.
- tonyhart7 1y ago
  "If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod." this, AI is nothing without data set so if you working in bleeding edge technology where your tools is only have 3 contributor and a way to access them via IRC channel once a day, things get interesting
- muldvarp 1y ago
  > AI mostly doesn’t produce adequate quality or correctness for the type of code I enjoy writing. This assumes that companies care about "code quality" and customers care about bugs. > If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod. There are a lot of software engineers and not a lot of frontier.
koliber 1y ago
Software is still eating the world. It was always about efficiency. It was about getting rid of manual data entry by building CSV based export-import flows. It was about getting rid of hundreds of chatbot operators answering mundane questions with an AI bot that could do a decent job with the easy-but-voluminous conversations. Now it’s about getting rid of the tedious coding jobs and replacing them with code gen tools. In each of these cases, lots of relatively low-value jobs were no longer needed and a few very-high-value jobs sprang into existence. The author of the article loves coding. But software is about solving problems efficiently, not punching the keyboard. The other parts of the job might not be as fun for everyone, but they are even more valuable than typing code. Great programmers could always do both. Now they can focus on the higher value work more by leveraging tools that can do the lower-value work. Work is not supposed to be fun. That’s why they pay you to do it. If it was fun, you would have to pay your employer. (Tongue in cheek advice).
- jimbokun 1y ago
  But for several decades we had a cheat code. We got paid a lot of money for doing interesting work solving valuable problems. We could quickly start businesses with little investment, or work for corporations and earn a high upper middle class salary in comfortable working conditions and good benefits. We were incredibly fortunate, and it's sad to see it going away, even if we've been more fortunate than most people until now.
empressplay 1y ago
LLMs are a useful tool but they are basically idiot savants. They still need someone with higher reasoning skills (eg humans) to verify what they cough up. This need is likely to continue for quite some time (since LLMs simply aren't capable of higher reasoning). Learning to code effectively using LLMs is probably the best path forward, from a career standpoint.
muldvarp 1y ago
I genuinely feel like I got bait-and-switched by computer science. If I could go back and study something different I would do it in a heartbeat. Sadly, there's very little I can do now. I don't have the financial means to meaningfully change careers now. Pretty much the only thing I could do now that pays somewhat well and doesn't require me to go to university again is teaching. I think I will ride this one out and end it when it ends.
- heddycrow 1y ago
  What if you go back and discover every path you could have taken is a bait-and-switch?
  - muldvarp 1y ago
    I did like the (short) LLM-free part of my career. The bait-and-switch refers specifically to the changes due to the introduction of LLMs. Any career where LLMs don't play a big role would not have been a bait-and-switch. That said, I don't understand the point of "what if nothing ever works out for you?"-type questions. What do you expect me to answer here? That I'm secretly a wizard and with the flick of my magic wand I'll make something work out?
    - heddycrow 1y ago
      The majority of the questions I ask are delivered with the hope that the answer I get is beyond what I might expect. For me, that's sort of the point in asking - fun times exploring together. I do think everything can be seen as bait and switch if you assume there is someone behind the wheel who knows where we are going and how to drive. If anything, I might have been suspecting we'd both arrive at that point together. Again, was hoping to be surprised a bit. The wizard bit was kinda fun. Mild thanks, human. I'll just be over here beating this tech over the head for kicks. I wish you well!
- orev 1y ago
  For most jobs in any field, having a degree is more important than what the degree is in. University is not a jobs training program, it’s a way to build a foundation. Understanding how systems work together can be applied in many areas of business, not just coding.
yes_man 1y ago
Just putting aside the bold assumption that LLMs do make coders obsolete or coding unnecessary, it is possible to find similar joy in the end result as one does (or did, given the article) for programming itself. Focusing on what kind of tools or products are being created, and what problems are being solved, and together with LLMs achieving that goal better and faster than without them and finding joy in solving problems this world has. That’s typically why anyone would have paid you to code anyway even before LLMs. Of course in reality there’s weird economical mechanics where making the most money and building something that benefits the world don’t necessarily collide, but theres always demand for and joy in solving complex problems, even if its on a higher abstraction level than coding with your favorite language.
heddycrow 1y ago
Choose your own adventure: 1) you are using coding assistant too much - you aren't yet ready for the Senior role that requires. Advice: chill out with that and get back to coding solo or 2) you haven't used coding assistant enough to realize it's an idiot savant grade Junior to Mid programmer. Advice: use coding assistant more and then see #1 Real talk: all moments suck and all moments are wonderful. Source: have lived through few computer moments. What a time to be alive!
bob1029 1y ago
Simply being interested in the tools and technologies is no longer sufficient for success or happiness. There was a time when you could walk in the door with a handful of proper nouns printed on a piece of paper. The low hanging fruit has all been collected by now. But, there is always fruit available higher up in the tree. It's just harder to get to. Most people don't know how to climb the tree. They say they can, or that they do it all the time, but they're usually full of shit. It takes a lot of practice and discipline to do this safely. To be clear, the tree is the customer in this analogy. Your tech and tools are only useful in so far as they complete a valuable job for some party. Reselling value-added tools to other craftsmen is also a viable path, but you have to recognize that the most wizened operators tend to use the older and more boring options. Something that looks incredibly clever to a developer with 3 years of experience is often instantly disregarded by someone with 4 years of experience. The rate at which you stop being a noob is ideally exponential. I often look back on the things I thought were absolutely mandatory from a technology standpoint and feel really silly about much of it. I wish there was a better way to ramp developers without them causing total destruction. Right now it's like we're training electrician apprentices by having them work on HV switch gear at a nuclear power plant. There is still a huge gap in ideas like apprenticeship in technology. Being able to code is such a tiny piece of the pie. Being able to engage in dialog with the non technical business owners such that your code has effect on target is ~ the rest of the pizza. A laser guided munition delivered from 60k feet will not be very useful if you don't know where it needs to go or how many targets there are. A lot of what I see on the HN front page is tantamount to carpet bombing the jungle non-stop in hopes of jostling an apple out of a tree somewhere.
miellaby 1y ago
I share with the author this youth where a child learns coding before everything else. I really loved coding and made it my carrier. Yet I don't think I would have been on the side of recognized genius if born earlier. I don't think any of them spent most of their time smashing keys. They were rather conceptualizing and planning stuff, and had human skills I could only dream of. That being said, we untalented programmers are experiencing what most jobs suffered in the last 2 centuries: massive automation of their everyday activities. I especially identify with these traditional farmers who took their life as their way of life was wiped out by artificial fertilizers, mechanic, chemicals and hyperscaling.
classified 1y ago
I'm getting so tired of this "AI" shit. I feel like everything that there was to say about it has been said. I haven't seen a blog or article about it that contained anything worthwhile for some time now. Everything is a rehash. Can't we just be done with it already?
monch1962 1y ago
Old fart here... I started coding in the 70s, loved it then, still love it now and LOVING the emergence of Gen AI tools. For perspective, the IT industry went through a similar change with the emergence of search engines ~30 years ago. At that time, a big part of the value of a software "expert" was in their ability to remember and recall lots of info (most of it of dubious value, to be fair). These experts usually had shelves of well-thumbed books on all sorts of topics, and could recall obscure info from these books seemingly at will. With the emergence of AskJeeves, AltaVista and eventually Google, suddenly nobody needed to remember anything OR even know where to find it - with a simple search, you could get nearly all the info you needed. I can still remember the panicked response to this brutal change from the senior IT people I worked with at the time... Did the demand for skilled developers dry up? No Nor did it end with - introduction of COBOL (designed so that non-coders could write code), - PCs (surely leading to the end of systems programming as a career), - spreadsheets (so accountants no longer needed programmers), - 4GLs (designed to greatly simplify coding; report writing in particular), - Visual BASIC (so the world would no longer need C programmers; anyone could learn to write BASIC), - Microsoft SQL Server (nobody would need mainframe databases any more, so all those mainframe jobs would disappear) - object oriented coding (all those code reuse possibilities! Very quickly programming should devolve to just glueing together other peoples' code), - open source (because inevitably any tool of value would soon have a competitor that was free, destroying the value proposition of companies that wrote software to sell), - Linux (how could Windows compete with free? Shed a tear for all those soon-to-be-unemployed Windows experts) - NoSQL (because the need for "legacy" databases like Oracle, DB2, Postgres, MySQL etc. would surely go away) - etc., etc., etc. The reality is that you still need a grounding in software development to do coding well, even with AIs. I'm absolutely loving how quickly I can create solid code with the assistance of Gen AI - lots of tasks that used to take me a week I can now knock over in a few hours. I also notice how many people are struggling with how to use Gen AI tools for coding tasks - my take is there's 2 distinct skills you need: knowledge of how to do software development well, and knowledge of how to use Gen AI tools for coding. Having the first doesn't automatically lead to the 2nd - you have to put in the time to learn about Gen AI, THEN work out how to fit Gen AI tools around your current workflow, THEN work out how to optimise the way you work with your new idiot savant buddy that has perfect recall. That whole process (new tool appears -> learn about it -> work out how to fit it into my current workflow -> optimise my workflow) has basically been my entire career in a nutshell. People have been predicting the demise of programmers for my entire career (40+ years now), and so far they've been wrong every time. For each new disruption that appears, the key has been to embrace it and adapt how you work accordingly. Gen AI may indeed be different and kill off all programming careers overnight, but so far I'm not seeing it
CuriouslyC 1y ago
I find it pretty sad when people talk about AI taking away the joy of coding. That means you don't care about problem solving, you only care about the crank you turn on the way to solving a problem. That's like enjoying putting words on paper but not caring about the story you write, just mind boggling.
- simultsop 1y ago
  I fail to see how those two are disconnected. If you are selling "just do it using AI", not that you are wrong, but you fail to understand the loss of years of investment in one self, wiped away one prompt at a time. Not literally, just feels like that.
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    I understand people being afraid of or disliking AI because they feel threatened, 100%. Raging and being toxic on the internet isn't going to stop it though, realistically we all just have to figure out how we can continue to provide value above and beyond the tools.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  If you read a story someone else wrote, do you care about writing? Similar to running a program written by AI, not by you. The whole promise of AI is that you are not problem solving. A machine is solving problems with as little input and understanding from you as possible. That's the entire promise of AI.
  - CuriouslyC 1y ago
    Let me bring it home for you. Imagine that you came up with a story in your head, full and complete. Imagine you used AI to get down a quick rough draft, specifying what happens in each chapter in explicit detail, then you went back and rewrote the AI draft line by line to be your words, your voice. Now imagine someone calls the thing you created, your story, your words, AI trash, and refused to even critically examine it, just because someone told them AI was used in some way (however small) in the creation of the work. This behavior is pervasive. Maybe you don't think this way but this is the company you're keeping. Also, if you're not problem solving when you do AI coding, sorry to say but that probably predicts a lot of your results.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

almosthere 1y ago

[flagged]

LordGrignard 1y ago
Blud what
milesskorpen 1y ago
What?
- wseqyrku 1y ago
  I think they have been hacked

Hannah203 1y ago

[dead]

Ericson2314 1y ago

I have 2000s web nostalgia, but I think the modern dot com and onward software SV was, frankly, mostly up to stupid shit. Not something to romanticize Good things to look forward to are: - Lean and mathlib revolutionizing math - Typst replacing latex and maybe some adobe prosuc - Fuschia/Redox/wasi replacing Unix - non-professional-programmers finally learning programming en mass I think the latter is maybe the most profound. Tech may not grow at a break-neck pace, but erasing the programmer vs computer illiterate dichotomy will mean software can way the world in much less Kafkaesque ways.

Pamar 1y ago
I think that what erased "programmer vs computer illiterate" dichotomy was BASIC in the 80s. I've met lots of "digital natives" and they seem to use technology as a black box and click/touch stuff at random until it sorta works but they do not very good at creating at mental model of why something is behaving in a way which is not what was expected and verify their own hypothesis (i.e. "debugging").
- maegul 1y ago
  Agreed. And I feel it fair to argue that this is the intended interface between proprietary software and its users, categorically. And more so with AI software/tools, and IMO frighteningly so. I don’t know where the open models people are up to, but as a response to this I’d wager they’ll end up playing the Linux desktop game all over again. All of which strikes at one of the essential AI questions for me: do you want humans to understand the world we live in or not? Doesn’t have to be individually, as groups of people can be good at understanding something beyond an individual. But a productivity gain isn’t on it’s a sufficient response to this question. Interestingly, it really wasn’t long ago that “understanding the full computing stack” was a topic around here (IIRC). It’d be interesting to see if some “based” “vinyl player programming” movement evolved in response to AI in which using and developing tech stacks designed to be comprehensively comprehensible is the core motivation. I’d be down.
righthand 1y ago
> non-professional-programmers finally learning programming en mass I don’t think this is what you think it is. It’s more like non-professional-programmers hacking together all the applications they wanted to hack together before. The Llm is just the glue. IMO, they are NOT learning programming.
- MiiMe19 1y ago
  this exactly. No one is getting smarter or learning anything, the bar to make something just no longer requires you to be competent.
- 1y ago

TheDong 1y ago

I identify with this, though I'm further along the path. Coding was incredibly fun until working in capitalist companies got involved. It was then still fairy fun, but tinged by some amount of "the company is just trying to make money, it doesn't care that the pricing sucks and it's inefficient, it's more profitable to make mediocre software with more features than really nail and polish any one part" Adding on AI impacts how fun coding is for me exactly how they say, and that compounds with company's misaligned incentives. ... I do sometimes think maybe I'm just burned out though, and I'm looking for ways to rationalize it, rather than doing the healthy thing and quitting my job to join a cult-like anti-technology commune.

maegul 1y ago
I resonate. For me I’m vaguely but persistently thinking about a career change, wondering if I can find something of more tangible “real world” value. An essential basis of which being the question of whether any given tech job just doesn’t hold much apparent “real world value”.

zkmon 1y ago

It may not be that hard to see where this is all going. At least with some precision. Think of global arms race, or industrialization. Humans and this planet did not need any of that. Planet did not need it, because when you look at these cities from a flight, they look exactly like wounds that disrupt the continuity of greenery and terrain. Cities and industries don't belong to this planet. And no need to say much about the silly arms race and business-driven tech that humans have. AI is just one of those arms races that we imposed on ourselves, with desire to dominate others, or to protect ourselves from such domination. It is irreversible, just like the other things. It survives by using the same tactic of a cheap salesman - tell the first buyer that they can dominate the world, and then tell next buyers that they need to protect themselves from the first one. We transformed our lifestyles to live with those unnecessary, business/politics driven "advancements". The saga continues. BTW, electronic calculators, when they came up, did a similar thing, erasing the fun out of calculations by hand.

noduerme 1y ago
All of life is an arms race. Look at fungi vs. bacteria. All those grasses in the fields and trees in the forests got there by outcompeting other organisms. We're actually the only species which can reason about our resource consumption as a whole, and which has a chance to do something about it. But while we find forests beautiful, they're a blight on grasslands, which are a blight on mosses, which are a blight on plain old rocks. What's beautiful is complexity, what's ugly is the destruction of complexity. That's why we find the destruction of forests to be repellent. Because we appreciate the more complex over the less complex. Possibly because complexity is the universe's way of observing itself. None of that means that our own complexity is necessarily wicked or irrelevant. It may just be a natural stage in the evolution of a planet. Grassland had 3 billion years to change, and it largely stayed the same. What's a couple thousand years of us blowing shit up, really?
- zkmon 1y ago
  Great points. Thank you. I realized (just after posting) that the wound part is not well-defined. Any abrupt change could be seen as a wound. But we need to define "progress" as species. Grasslands, trees and dolphins seem to have defined their progress as better adaptation helped by their organic evolution, which contributed to their ultimate goal of reproduction via survival. How is human race defining their progress? Since we are just one of the animal species, the root goal remains as reproduction. Instead of waiting for our biological evolution to enhance our survival (and thus reproduction), maybe we are augmenting human abilities with artificial means which is quicker. But then the artificial augmentations could become you, replacing whatever your essence was. A weapon in your hand and AI chip in your head could make you a different beast. We can argue that even without such tools, human is mostly made up of bacterial colonies dictating human thought and life. But we accepted that as our identity. Now the artificial implements are taking up our identity. This is not natural and that is what is wicked. Also arms race not same as how species out-competed each other. Our arms race and most of what we call as tech progress is spawned by competition internal to our species, not for competing with other species. Universe did not favor complexity. Universe destroys order and moves towards more entropy. Life is something that goes against this. Life probably was required to trap Sun's energy so that Earth can cool itself. In geologic time scale, yes, a couple thousand years is puny. But it also indicates a rapid change. Most rapid changes lead to extinction events.

snayan 1y ago

Having gone through a bit of a crisis of meaning personally lately, this article resonates deeply. I would encourage the author to look inward and question the beliefs that got them here. I'd argue you didn't lose the joy of coding, you lost the illusion that coding made you real, that it made you you.

uhhhd 1y ago
This is wise
anonzzzies 1y ago
I came to the same conclusion after 40+ years of programming: better if you come to that realisation earlier. Still love coding though, but I leave the paid work to my colleagues and llms: I just code for fun these days. I also write for fun and find it pretty similar, feeling and satisfaction wise.
- dimator 1y ago
  But, what about the graduating senior who, yeah started because they love the craft, but also need a way to pay the bills for a few decades of their life?
leptons 1y ago
There definitely are times that I lose the "joy of coding" and it has nothing to do with any illusions, it has everything to do with the kind of programming tasks I have to work on. Greenfield projects are the best, tech debt is the worst. Working on fun stuff is just fun.
- snayan 1y ago
  That's a wonderful place to be. I'm not suggesting that the joy of coding is tied to illusions for everyone, just appears to be more to the story in the case of the author based on his framing.
- jimbokun 1y ago

doug_durham 1y ago

This seems to romanticize the past. I've been doing this for 40 years and I don't see that much has changed. I would code even if I didn't get paid for it. That said I've always seen writing code as a means to an end. I use GenAI every day to write code, and it brings pure joy when there's boiler plate that I don't need to write so I can focus on the fun stuff. There is zero value in me writing yet another Python argparse routine. I've done it and I've learn everything I'm ever going to learn about it. Let me get on to the stuff that I don't know how to do.

spockz 1y ago
Okay I get the desire of not wanting to do repetitive stuff. It appears doing this with an llm scratches your itch. Before the same - focusing on the intrinsic complexity instead of the accidental - could be achieved by using libraries, toolkits, frameworks, better compiler (plugins), or “better” languages. What plagues me about LLMs is that all that generated code is still around in the project making reviews harder as well s understanding the whole program source. What is in there that makes you prefer this mechanism instead of the abstractions that have been increasingly available since forever?
- seer 1y ago
  Isn't this compiled languages vs writing pure machine code argument all over again? The compiler produces a metric shit ton of code that I don't see when I'm writing C++ code. And don't get me started on TypeScript/Clojure - the amount of code that gets written underneath is mindbogglingly staggering, yet I don't see it, for me the code is "clean". And I'm old enough to remember the tail end of the MachineCode -> CompiledCode transition, and have certainly lived through CompiledCode -> InterpretedCode -> TranspiledCode ones. There were certainly people who knew the ins and outs of the underlying technology who produced some stunningly fast and beautiful code, but the march of progress was inevitable and they were gradually driven to obscurity. This recent LLM step just feels like more of the same. *I* know how to write an optimized routine that the LLM will stumble to do cleanly, but back in the day lots of assembler wizards were doing some crazy stuff, stuff that I admired but didn't have the time to replicate. I imagine in the next 10-20 years we will have Devs that _only_ know English, are trained in classical logic and have flame wars about what code exactly would their tools generate given various sentence invocations. And people would benchmark and investigate the way we currently do about JIT compilation and CPU caching - very few know how it actually works but the rest don't have to, as long as the machine produces the results we want. Just one more step on the abstraction ladder. The "Mars" trilogy by Kim Stanley Robinson had very cool extrapolations where this all could lead, technologically, politically, social and morally. LLMs didn't exists when he was writing it, but he predicted it anyway.

analog31 1y ago

>>> The joy of coding for me was literally the process of coding. Maybe I was lucky. For me, the joy was the power of coding. Granted, I'm not employed as a coder. I'm a scientist, and I use coding as a problem solving tool. Nothing I write goes directly into production. What's gone is the feeling that coding is a special elite skill. With that said, I still admire and respect the real software developers, because good software is more than code.

weavejester 1y ago

"I’m not sure if anyone else feels this way, but with the introduction of generative AI, I don’t find coding fun anymore. It’s hard to motivate myself to code knowing that a model can do it much quicker. The joy of coding for me was literally the process of coding." I experimented with GPT-5 recently and found its capabilities to be significantly inferior to that of a human, at least when it came to coding. I was trying to give it an optimal environment, so I set it to work on a small JavaScript/HTML web application, and I divided the task into small steps, as I'd heard it did best under those circumstances. I was impressed overall by how far the technology has come, but it produced a number of elementary errors, such as putting JavaScript outside the script tags. As the code grew, there was also no sense that it had a good idea of how to structure the codebase, even when I suggested it analyze and refactor. So unless there are far more capable models out there, we're not at the stage where generative AI can match a human. In general I find current model to have broad but shallow thinking. They can draw on many sources, which is extremely useful, but seem to have problems reasoning things through in depth. All this is to say that I don't find the joy of coding to have gone at all. In fact, there's been a number of really thorny problems I've had to deal with recently that I'd love to have side-stepped, but due to the currently limitations of LLMs I had to solve them the old-fashioned way.

CamperBob2 1y ago
I experimented with GPT-5 recently GPT-5 what? The GPT-5 models range from goofily stupid to brilliant. If you let it select the model automatically, which is the case by default, it will tend to lean towards the former.
- weavejester 1y ago
  I was using GitHub Copilot Pro with VS Code, and the agent was labelled "GPT-5". Is this a particularly poor version of the model? I also briefly tried out some of the other paid-for models, but mostly worked with GPT-5.
  - spenczar5 1y ago
    Frankly, yes. The models are one part of the story. But the software around it matters at least as much: what tools does the model have access to, like bash or just file reading or (as in your example!) just a cache of files visited by the IDE (!). How does the software decide what extra context to provide to the model, how does it record past learnings from conversations and failed test runs (if at all!) and how are those fed in. And of course, what are the system prompts. None of this is about the model; its all "plain old" software, and is the stuff around the model. Increasingly, that's where the quality differences lie. I am sorry to say but Copilot is just sort of shoddy in this regard. I like Claude, some people like Codex, there are a bunch of options. But my main point is - its probably not about the model, but about the products built on the models, which can vary wildly in quality.

beej71 1y ago

The fun is still there. I'm relearning Rust and generative AI is really useful to help with understanding concepts and improving code. But I'm still the one understanding and improving. Still an infinite amount to learn and do. It's still not hard to have more skill than an AI. Of course AI can solve all the dumbbell problems you get in school. They're just there to build muscle. Robots can lift weights better than you, too, but that doesn't mean there's no value in you doing it.

quirino 1y ago
It's Beej from the guides! I really appreciated the perspective you put forward here: https://beej.us/guide/bglcs/html/split/use-of-ai.html#ai-and-the-jobs-market https://beej.us/guide/bglcs/html/split/use-of-ai.html#ai-and....
imiric 1y ago
> It's still not hard to have more skill than an AI. Eh, today, maybe, and within specific domains. It's far from certain that this will remain true 5 or 10 years from now. The capability of these tools has improved greatly even compared to a year ago, so it's not far fetched to imagine that they will continue to gain ground. > Of course AI can solve all the dumbbell problems you get in school. They're just there to build muscle. Robots can lift weights better than you, too, but that doesn't mean there's no value in you doing it. That's a strange analogy. Technology, by definition, exists to facilitate human work. Relying on it has the opposite effect of "building muscle". "Muscles", in fact, atrophy the more we rely on technology. Doing the work without technology can certainly be valuable. But it's a personal value appreciated at most by a niche community of people. The actual market value of the work collapses once the product becomes a commodity. This is the effect of "AI" tools on software. The quality of the fast and cheap version of the product is still inferior to the artisan product, but a) this can only improve, and b) most of the market can't tell the difference.
- beej71 1y ago
  > It's far from certain that this will remain true 5 or 10 years from now. I agree with this statement. But I also firmly believe that if AI gets good enough to replace software developers en masse, it will be good enough for basically everything and the global economy will collapse. > Relying on it has the opposite effect of "building muscle". "Muscles", in fact, atrophy the more we rely on technology. I also agree with that statement, but I'm not arguing to rely on it entirely, but to use it to become better at bigger things than it can possibly imagine. Yes, there will be tons of boilerplate code and those jobs will go the way of the dodo. But half the businesses in the world are better than the other half, and they didn't get there by doing the exact same thing as everyone else. Thought experiment: if there were an AI everyone had access to that was capable of designing and implementing a business that would crush all competition, how would you make your business succeed?

MiiMe19 1y ago

I relate to this on a level that I have felt before. I went from wanting to program for literally any company just as long as I could write code to just wanting to finish my degree and make enough money to live in the middle of nowhere with no internet access for the rest of my life.

vydra 1y ago

Its definitely much harder to get into the industry than it was a few years ago and if its coding you were after, you may indeed be disappointed. But give Software Engineering a try! We need to rewrite many of our critical systems and we are afraid to do so primarily to the lack of truly skilled software engineers. IMHO, the AI agents are creating time for us to study what really matters. I would start with Modern Software Engineering by Dave Farley. DM me directly if you want to chat on this topic. https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvydra/ https://www.linkedin.com/in/dvydra/

jandrewrogers 1y ago

I still enjoy coding. AI mostly doesn’t produce adequate quality or correctness for the type of code I enjoy writing. There are several domains where AI is worse than useless because training data doesn’t exist. Obviously my experience doesn’t generalize but writing software is a vast, unbounded domain. If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod.

tonyhart7 1y ago
"If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod." this, AI is nothing without data set so if you working in bleeding edge technology where your tools is only have 3 contributor and a way to access them via IRC channel once a day, things get interesting
muldvarp 1y ago
> AI mostly doesn’t produce adequate quality or correctness for the type of code I enjoy writing. This assumes that companies care about "code quality" and customers care about bugs. > If you find coding boring, explore the frontiers. You will find a lot of coding wilderness where no AI has trod. There are a lot of software engineers and not a lot of frontier.

koliber 1y ago

Software is still eating the world. It was always about efficiency. It was about getting rid of manual data entry by building CSV based export-import flows. It was about getting rid of hundreds of chatbot operators answering mundane questions with an AI bot that could do a decent job with the easy-but-voluminous conversations. Now it’s about getting rid of the tedious coding jobs and replacing them with code gen tools. In each of these cases, lots of relatively low-value jobs were no longer needed and a few very-high-value jobs sprang into existence. The author of the article loves coding. But software is about solving problems efficiently, not punching the keyboard. The other parts of the job might not be as fun for everyone, but they are even more valuable than typing code. Great programmers could always do both. Now they can focus on the higher value work more by leveraging tools that can do the lower-value work. Work is not supposed to be fun. That’s why they pay you to do it. If it was fun, you would have to pay your employer. (Tongue in cheek advice).

jimbokun 1y ago
But for several decades we had a cheat code. We got paid a lot of money for doing interesting work solving valuable problems. We could quickly start businesses with little investment, or work for corporations and earn a high upper middle class salary in comfortable working conditions and good benefits. We were incredibly fortunate, and it's sad to see it going away, even if we've been more fortunate than most people until now.

empressplay 1y ago

LLMs are a useful tool but they are basically idiot savants. They still need someone with higher reasoning skills (eg humans) to verify what they cough up. This need is likely to continue for quite some time (since LLMs simply aren't capable of higher reasoning). Learning to code effectively using LLMs is probably the best path forward, from a career standpoint.

muldvarp 1y ago

I genuinely feel like I got bait-and-switched by computer science. If I could go back and study something different I would do it in a heartbeat. Sadly, there's very little I can do now. I don't have the financial means to meaningfully change careers now. Pretty much the only thing I could do now that pays somewhat well and doesn't require me to go to university again is teaching. I think I will ride this one out and end it when it ends.

heddycrow 1y ago
What if you go back and discover every path you could have taken is a bait-and-switch?
- muldvarp 1y ago
  I did like the (short) LLM-free part of my career. The bait-and-switch refers specifically to the changes due to the introduction of LLMs. Any career where LLMs don't play a big role would not have been a bait-and-switch. That said, I don't understand the point of "what if nothing ever works out for you?"-type questions. What do you expect me to answer here? That I'm secretly a wizard and with the flick of my magic wand I'll make something work out?
  - heddycrow 1y ago
    The majority of the questions I ask are delivered with the hope that the answer I get is beyond what I might expect. For me, that's sort of the point in asking - fun times exploring together. I do think everything can be seen as bait and switch if you assume there is someone behind the wheel who knows where we are going and how to drive. If anything, I might have been suspecting we'd both arrive at that point together. Again, was hoping to be surprised a bit. The wizard bit was kinda fun. Mild thanks, human. I'll just be over here beating this tech over the head for kicks. I wish you well!
orev 1y ago
For most jobs in any field, having a degree is more important than what the degree is in. University is not a jobs training program, it’s a way to build a foundation. Understanding how systems work together can be applied in many areas of business, not just coding.

yes_man 1y ago

Just putting aside the bold assumption that LLMs do make coders obsolete or coding unnecessary, it is possible to find similar joy in the end result as one does (or did, given the article) for programming itself. Focusing on what kind of tools or products are being created, and what problems are being solved, and together with LLMs achieving that goal better and faster than without them and finding joy in solving problems this world has. That’s typically why anyone would have paid you to code anyway even before LLMs. Of course in reality there’s weird economical mechanics where making the most money and building something that benefits the world don’t necessarily collide, but theres always demand for and joy in solving complex problems, even if its on a higher abstraction level than coding with your favorite language.

heddycrow 1y ago

Choose your own adventure: 1) you are using coding assistant too much - you aren't yet ready for the Senior role that requires. Advice: chill out with that and get back to coding solo or 2) you haven't used coding assistant enough to realize it's an idiot savant grade Junior to Mid programmer. Advice: use coding assistant more and then see #1 Real talk: all moments suck and all moments are wonderful. Source: have lived through few computer moments. What a time to be alive!

bob1029 1y ago

Simply being interested in the tools and technologies is no longer sufficient for success or happiness. There was a time when you could walk in the door with a handful of proper nouns printed on a piece of paper. The low hanging fruit has all been collected by now. But, there is always fruit available higher up in the tree. It's just harder to get to. Most people don't know how to climb the tree. They say they can, or that they do it all the time, but they're usually full of shit. It takes a lot of practice and discipline to do this safely. To be clear, the tree is the customer in this analogy. Your tech and tools are only useful in so far as they complete a valuable job for some party. Reselling value-added tools to other craftsmen is also a viable path, but you have to recognize that the most wizened operators tend to use the older and more boring options. Something that looks incredibly clever to a developer with 3 years of experience is often instantly disregarded by someone with 4 years of experience. The rate at which you stop being a noob is ideally exponential. I often look back on the things I thought were absolutely mandatory from a technology standpoint and feel really silly about much of it. I wish there was a better way to ramp developers without them causing total destruction. Right now it's like we're training electrician apprentices by having them work on HV switch gear at a nuclear power plant. There is still a huge gap in ideas like apprenticeship in technology. Being able to code is such a tiny piece of the pie. Being able to engage in dialog with the non technical business owners such that your code has effect on target is ~ the rest of the pizza. A laser guided munition delivered from 60k feet will not be very useful if you don't know where it needs to go or how many targets there are. A lot of what I see on the HN front page is tantamount to carpet bombing the jungle non-stop in hopes of jostling an apple out of a tree somewhere.

miellaby 1y ago

I share with the author this youth where a child learns coding before everything else. I really loved coding and made it my carrier. Yet I don't think I would have been on the side of recognized genius if born earlier. I don't think any of them spent most of their time smashing keys. They were rather conceptualizing and planning stuff, and had human skills I could only dream of. That being said, we untalented programmers are experiencing what most jobs suffered in the last 2 centuries: massive automation of their everyday activities. I especially identify with these traditional farmers who took their life as their way of life was wiped out by artificial fertilizers, mechanic, chemicals and hyperscaling.

classified 1y ago

I'm getting so tired of this "AI" shit. I feel like everything that there was to say about it has been said. I haven't seen a blog or article about it that contained anything worthwhile for some time now. Everything is a rehash. Can't we just be done with it already?

monch1962 1y ago

Old fart here... I started coding in the 70s, loved it then, still love it now and LOVING the emergence of Gen AI tools. For perspective, the IT industry went through a similar change with the emergence of search engines ~30 years ago. At that time, a big part of the value of a software "expert" was in their ability to remember and recall lots of info (most of it of dubious value, to be fair). These experts usually had shelves of well-thumbed books on all sorts of topics, and could recall obscure info from these books seemingly at will. With the emergence of AskJeeves, AltaVista and eventually Google, suddenly nobody needed to remember anything OR even know where to find it - with a simple search, you could get nearly all the info you needed. I can still remember the panicked response to this brutal change from the senior IT people I worked with at the time... Did the demand for skilled developers dry up? No Nor did it end with - introduction of COBOL (designed so that non-coders could write code), - PCs (surely leading to the end of systems programming as a career), - spreadsheets (so accountants no longer needed programmers), - 4GLs (designed to greatly simplify coding; report writing in particular), - Visual BASIC (so the world would no longer need C programmers; anyone could learn to write BASIC), - Microsoft SQL Server (nobody would need mainframe databases any more, so all those mainframe jobs would disappear) - object oriented coding (all those code reuse possibilities! Very quickly programming should devolve to just glueing together other peoples' code), - open source (because inevitably any tool of value would soon have a competitor that was free, destroying the value proposition of companies that wrote software to sell), - Linux (how could Windows compete with free? Shed a tear for all those soon-to-be-unemployed Windows experts) - NoSQL (because the need for "legacy" databases like Oracle, DB2, Postgres, MySQL etc. would surely go away) - etc., etc., etc. The reality is that you still need a grounding in software development to do coding well, even with AIs. I'm absolutely loving how quickly I can create solid code with the assistance of Gen AI - lots of tasks that used to take me a week I can now knock over in a few hours. I also notice how many people are struggling with how to use Gen AI tools for coding tasks - my take is there's 2 distinct skills you need: knowledge of how to do software development well, and knowledge of how to use Gen AI tools for coding. Having the first doesn't automatically lead to the 2nd - you have to put in the time to learn about Gen AI, THEN work out how to fit Gen AI tools around your current workflow, THEN work out how to optimise the way you work with your new idiot savant buddy that has perfect recall. That whole process (new tool appears -> learn about it -> work out how to fit it into my current workflow -> optimise my workflow) has basically been my entire career in a nutshell. People have been predicting the demise of programmers for my entire career (40+ years now), and so far they've been wrong every time. For each new disruption that appears, the key has been to embrace it and adapt how you work accordingly. Gen AI may indeed be different and kill off all programming careers overnight, but so far I'm not seeing it

CuriouslyC 1y ago

I find it pretty sad when people talk about AI taking away the joy of coding. That means you don't care about problem solving, you only care about the crank you turn on the way to solving a problem. That's like enjoying putting words on paper but not caring about the story you write, just mind boggling.

simultsop 1y ago
I fail to see how those two are disconnected. If you are selling "just do it using AI", not that you are wrong, but you fail to understand the loss of years of investment in one self, wiped away one prompt at a time. Not literally, just feels like that.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  I understand people being afraid of or disliking AI because they feel threatened, 100%. Raging and being toxic on the internet isn't going to stop it though, realistically we all just have to figure out how we can continue to provide value above and beyond the tools.
jimbokun 1y ago
If you read a story someone else wrote, do you care about writing? Similar to running a program written by AI, not by you. The whole promise of AI is that you are not problem solving. A machine is solving problems with as little input and understanding from you as possible. That's the entire promise of AI.
- CuriouslyC 1y ago
  Let me bring it home for you. Imagine that you came up with a story in your head, full and complete. Imagine you used AI to get down a quick rough draft, specifying what happens in each chapter in explicit detail, then you went back and rewrote the AI draft line by line to be your words, your voice. Now imagine someone calls the thing you created, your story, your words, AI trash, and refused to even critically examine it, just because someone told them AI was used in some way (however small) in the creation of the work. This behavior is pervasive. Maybe you don't think this way but this is the company you're keeping. Also, if you're not problem solving when you do AI coding, sorry to say but that probably predicts a lot of your results.