3 ms·

> But if I was a junior I'd be very worried about the longevity I can expect as a dev. It's already easier for many/most cases to assign work to a LLM vs handho

> But if I was a junior I'd be very worried about the longevity I can expect as a dev. It's already easier for many/most cases to assign work to a LLM vs handholding a human through it. This sounds kind of logical, but really isn't. In reality you can ASSIGN a task to a junior dev and expect them to eventually complete it, and learn from the experience as well. Sure there'll likely be some interaction between the junior dev and mentor, and this is part of the learning process - something DESIREABLE since it leads to the developer getting better. In contrast, you really cant "assign" something to an LLM. You can of course try to, and give it some "vibe coding" assignment like "build me a backend component to read the data from the database", but the LLM/agent isn't an autonomous entity that can take ownership of the assignment and be expected to do whatever it takes (e.g. coming back to you and asking for help) to get it done. With todays "AI" technology it's the AI that needs all the handholding, and the person using the AI is the one who has effectively taken the assignment, not the LLM. Also, given the inability of LLMs to learn on the job, using an LLM as a tool to help get things done is going to be a groundhog day experience of having to micro-manage the process in the same way over and over again each time you use it... time that would have been better invested in helping a junior dev get up to speed and in the future be an independent developer that tasks can indeed be assigned to.

lupire 11mo ago
Doesn't matter. First, yes, a modern AI will come back and ask questions. Second, the AI is so much faster at interactions than a human is, that you can use that saved time to glance at its work and redirect it. The AI will come back with 10 prototype attempts in an hour, while a human will take a week for each, with more interupt questions for you about easy things
- HarHarVeryFunny 11mo ago
  Sure, LLMs are a useful tool, and fast, but the point is they don't have human level intelligence, can't learn, and are not autonomous outside of an agent that will attempt to complete a narrow task (but with no ownership and guarantee of eventual success). We'll presumably get there eventually and build "artificial humans", but for now what we've got is LLMs - tools for language task automation. If you want to ASSIGN a task to something/someone then you need a human or artificial human. For now that means assigning the task to a human, who will in turn use the LLM as a tool. Sure there may be some productivity increase (although some studies have indicated the exact opposite), but ultimately if you want to be able to get more work done in parallel then you need more entities that you can assign tasks do, and for time being that means humans.
  - thunky 11mo ago
    > the point is they don't have human level intelligence > If you want to ASSIGN a task to something/someone then you need a human or artificial human Maybe you haven't experienced it but a lot of junior devs don't really display that much intelligence. Their operating input is a clean task list, and they take it and convert it into code. It's more like "code entry" ("data entry", but with code). The person assigning tasks to them is doing the thinking. And they are still responsible for the final output, so if they find a computer better and cheaper at "code entry" than a human well then that's who they're assign it to. As you can see in this thread many are already doing this.
enraged_camel 11mo ago
>> e.g. coming back to you and asking for help Funny you mention this because Opus 4.5 did this just yesterday. I accidentally gave it a task with conflicting goals, and after working through it for a few minutes it realized what was going on, summarized the conflict and asked me which goal should be prioritized, along with detailed pros and cons of each approach. It’s exactly how I would expect a mid level developer to operate, except much faster and more thorough.
- HarHarVeryFunny 11mo ago
  Yes, they continue to get better, but they are not at human level (and jr devs are humans too) yet, and I doubt the next level "AGI" that people like Demis Hassabis are projecting to still be 10 years away will be human level either.
  - esafak 11mo ago
    Which human? LLMs are better than the average developer. In fact I estimate the SOTA models are well over the 90% percentile.
    - blackqueeriroh 11mo ago
      You both are cracking me up. Yes, LLMs are better than the average developer at writing code. But writing code is, like, 30% of what developers do.
      - HarHarVeryFunny 11mo ago
        No doubt it depends on the company, but I'd say that in many places only 10% of what a developer does is coding, and the percentage is less and less the more senior you become and have other responsibilities. In many companies, product development is very cyclic - new products and enhancement/modernization cycles come and result in months, maybe years, of intense development (architecture, design, maybe prototyping before coding) but then there may be many months of "downtime" before the next major development cycle, where coding gives way to ongoing support, tuning, bug triaging, etc. Maybe in some large companies there are highly compartmentalized roles like business analyst, systems architect, developers, perhaps "coders" as a separate or junior category (I have never worked anyplace where "coders" was a thing, although some people seem to insist that it still is). My experience, of a lifetime of software development, mostly at smaller companies, is that "software developers" are expected to do all of the above as well as production support, documentation, mentoring, new technology evaluation, etc, etc. The boss wants to give you a high level assignment, and get back a product. At one company I worked it was literally "build us an EKG machine at this price point", which might be a bit of an extreme example. The other thing a human software developer does during any "downtime" is self-initiated projects such as creating tools and infrastructure, automation, self-learning, refactoring, etc, and in my experience these self-initiated efforts can be just as, if not more, important to the overall productivity, and output quality, of the team as that of the product development cycles. LLMs primary use is coding, although they can also be of use for conversational brainstorming about design, tooling, etc. If you are "vibe coding" (just ask the LLM to do it, and cross your fingers) then the LLM is also doing in effect doing architecture, design, tool selection etc. Notwithstanding agents, which the AI companies proudly state may run for hours before messing up, LLMs are not autonomous entities that can replace developers and be handed high level assignments and will do what it takes (incl. communication with all stake holders, etc) to get the job done. They will not run in the background "taking care of the business" when you are not prompting them.
isquaredr 11mo ago
The difference is the LLM is predictable and repeatable. Whereas a junior dev could go AWOL, leave unexpectedly for a new job, or be generally difficult to work with, LLMs fit my schedule, show constant progress and are generally less anxiety inducing than pouring hundreds of thousands into a worker who may not pan out. This sentiment may be showing my lack of expertise in team building but at worst shows that LLMs represent a legitimate alternative to building a large team to achieve a vision.

lupire 11mo ago

Doesn't matter. First, yes, a modern AI will come back and ask questions. Second, the AI is so much faster at interactions than a human is, that you can use that saved time to glance at its work and redirect it. The AI will come back with 10 prototype attempts in an hour, while a human will take a week for each, with more interupt questions for you about easy things

HarHarVeryFunny 11mo ago
Sure, LLMs are a useful tool, and fast, but the point is they don't have human level intelligence, can't learn, and are not autonomous outside of an agent that will attempt to complete a narrow task (but with no ownership and guarantee of eventual success). We'll presumably get there eventually and build "artificial humans", but for now what we've got is LLMs - tools for language task automation. If you want to ASSIGN a task to something/someone then you need a human or artificial human. For now that means assigning the task to a human, who will in turn use the LLM as a tool. Sure there may be some productivity increase (although some studies have indicated the exact opposite), but ultimately if you want to be able to get more work done in parallel then you need more entities that you can assign tasks do, and for time being that means humans.
- thunky 11mo ago
  > the point is they don't have human level intelligence > If you want to ASSIGN a task to something/someone then you need a human or artificial human Maybe you haven't experienced it but a lot of junior devs don't really display that much intelligence. Their operating input is a clean task list, and they take it and convert it into code. It's more like "code entry" ("data entry", but with code). The person assigning tasks to them is doing the thinking. And they are still responsible for the final output, so if they find a computer better and cheaper at "code entry" than a human well then that's who they're assign it to. As you can see in this thread many are already doing this.

enraged_camel 11mo ago

>> e.g. coming back to you and asking for help Funny you mention this because Opus 4.5 did this just yesterday. I accidentally gave it a task with conflicting goals, and after working through it for a few minutes it realized what was going on, summarized the conflict and asked me which goal should be prioritized, along with detailed pros and cons of each approach. It’s exactly how I would expect a mid level developer to operate, except much faster and more thorough.

HarHarVeryFunny 11mo ago
Yes, they continue to get better, but they are not at human level (and jr devs are humans too) yet, and I doubt the next level "AGI" that people like Demis Hassabis are projecting to still be 10 years away will be human level either.
- esafak 11mo ago
  Which human? LLMs are better than the average developer. In fact I estimate the SOTA models are well over the 90% percentile.
  - blackqueeriroh 11mo ago
    You both are cracking me up. Yes, LLMs are better than the average developer at writing code. But writing code is, like, 30% of what developers do.
    - HarHarVeryFunny 11mo ago
      No doubt it depends on the company, but I'd say that in many places only 10% of what a developer does is coding, and the percentage is less and less the more senior you become and have other responsibilities. In many companies, product development is very cyclic - new products and enhancement/modernization cycles come and result in months, maybe years, of intense development (architecture, design, maybe prototyping before coding) but then there may be many months of "downtime" before the next major development cycle, where coding gives way to ongoing support, tuning, bug triaging, etc. Maybe in some large companies there are highly compartmentalized roles like business analyst, systems architect, developers, perhaps "coders" as a separate or junior category (I have never worked anyplace where "coders" was a thing, although some people seem to insist that it still is). My experience, of a lifetime of software development, mostly at smaller companies, is that "software developers" are expected to do all of the above as well as production support, documentation, mentoring, new technology evaluation, etc, etc. The boss wants to give you a high level assignment, and get back a product. At one company I worked it was literally "build us an EKG machine at this price point", which might be a bit of an extreme example. The other thing a human software developer does during any "downtime" is self-initiated projects such as creating tools and infrastructure, automation, self-learning, refactoring, etc, and in my experience these self-initiated efforts can be just as, if not more, important to the overall productivity, and output quality, of the team as that of the product development cycles. LLMs primary use is coding, although they can also be of use for conversational brainstorming about design, tooling, etc. If you are "vibe coding" (just ask the LLM to do it, and cross your fingers) then the LLM is also doing in effect doing architecture, design, tool selection etc. Notwithstanding agents, which the AI companies proudly state may run for hours before messing up, LLMs are not autonomous entities that can replace developers and be handed high level assignments and will do what it takes (incl. communication with all stake holders, etc) to get the job done. They will not run in the background "taking care of the business" when you are not prompting them.

isquaredr 11mo ago

The difference is the LLM is predictable and repeatable. Whereas a junior dev could go AWOL, leave unexpectedly for a new job, or be generally difficult to work with, LLMs fit my schedule, show constant progress and are generally less anxiety inducing than pouring hundreds of thousands into a worker who may not pan out. This sentiment may be showing my lack of expertise in team building but at worst shows that LLMs represent a legitimate alternative to building a large team to achieve a vision.