6 ms·

Precisely. The first 10 rungs of the ladder will be removed, but we still expect you to be able to get to the roof. The AI won't get you there and you won't hav

Precisely. The first 10 rungs of the ladder will be removed, but we still expect you to be able to get to the roof. The AI won't get you there and you won't have the knowledge you'd normally gain on those first 10 rungs to help you move past #10.

omega3 7mo ago
That’s a good analogy but I think we’ve already went from 0 to 10 rungs over the last couple of years. If we assume that the models or harnesses will improve more and more rungs will be removed. Vast majority of programmers aren’t doing novel, groundbreaking work.
- sweezyjeezy 7mo ago
  I think this was an unpopular opinion mainly because it's scary, rather than there being an obvious reason to think otherwise.
threatofrain 7mo ago
But AI might actually get you there in terms of superior pedagogy. Personal Q&A where most individuals wouldn't have afforded it before.
wongarsu 7mo ago
There are a lot of people in academia who are great at thinking about complex algorithms but can't write maintainable code if their life depended on it. There are ways to acquire those skills that don't go the junior developer route. Same with debugging and profiling skills But we might see a lot more specialization as a result
- iterateoften 7mo ago
  They can’t write maintainable code because they don’t have real world experience of getting your hands dirty in a company. The only way to get startup experience is to build a startup or work for one
  - wongarsu 7mo ago
    Duh, the only way to get startup experience is indeed to get startup experience. My point is that getting into the weeds of writing CRUD software is not the only way to gain the ability to write complex algorithms, or to debug complex issues, or do performance optimization. It's only common because the stuff you make on the journey used to be economically valuable
    - iterateoften 7mo ago
      > write complex algorithms, or to debug complex issues, or do performance optimization That’s the stuff that ai is eating. The stuff I’m talking about (scaling orgs, maintaining a project long term, deciding what features to build or not build etc) is stuff very hard for ai
      - 8note 7mo ago
        I dont know if id call it "hard for ai" so much as "untreaded ground" agents might be better at it than people are, given the right structure
      - cweld510 7mo ago
        AI is only eating some of that though. For instance, everyone who does performance work knows that perhaps the most important part of optimization is constructing the right benchmark. This is already the thing that makes intractable problems tractable. That effect is now exacerbated — AI can optimize anything given a benchmark —- but AI isn’t making great progress at constructing the benchmark itself.
  - tovej 7mo ago
    What. Are you saying maintainable code is specifically related to startups? I can accept companies as an answer (although there are other places to cut your teeth), but startups is a weird carveout.
    - Jensson 7mo ago
- cmiles74 7mo ago
  Do they need to write maintainable code? I think probably not, it's the research and discovering the new method that is important.
NiloCK 7mo ago
People would have said the same about graphing calculators or calculators before that. Socrates said the same thing about the written word. The determining factor is always "did I come up with this tool". Somehow, subsequent generations always manage to find their own competencies (which, to be fair, may be different). This isn't guaranteed to play out, but it should be the default expectation until we actually see greatly diminishing outputs at the frontier of science, engineering, etc.
- lukev 7mo ago
  I think that's too easy an analogy, though. Calculators are deterministically correct given the right input. It does not require expert judgement on whether an answer they gave is reasonable or not. As someone who uses LLMs all day for coding, and who regularly bumps against the boundaries of what they're capable of, that's very much not the case. The only reason I can use them effectively is because I know what good software looks like and when to drop down to more explicit instructions.
  - yunwal 7mo ago
    Determinism just means you don't have to use statistics to approach the right answer. It's not some silver bullet that magically makes things understandable and it's not true that if it's missing from a system you can't possibly understand it.
    - lukev 7mo ago
      That's not what I mean. If I use a calculator to find a logarithm, and I know what a logarithm is, then the answer the calculator gives me is perfectly useful and 100% substitutable for what I would have found if I'd calculated the logarithm myself. If I use Claude to "build a login page", it will definitely build me a login page. But there's a very real chance that what it generated contains a security issue. If I'm an experienced engineer I can take a quick look and validate whether it does or whether it doesn't, but if I'm not, I've introduced real risk to my application.

omega3 7mo ago

That’s a good analogy but I think we’ve already went from 0 to 10 rungs over the last couple of years. If we assume that the models or harnesses will improve more and more rungs will be removed. Vast majority of programmers aren’t doing novel, groundbreaking work.

sweezyjeezy 7mo ago
I think this was an unpopular opinion mainly because it's scary, rather than there being an obvious reason to think otherwise.

threatofrain 7mo ago

But AI might actually get you there in terms of superior pedagogy. Personal Q&A where most individuals wouldn't have afforded it before.

wongarsu 7mo ago

There are a lot of people in academia who are great at thinking about complex algorithms but can't write maintainable code if their life depended on it. There are ways to acquire those skills that don't go the junior developer route. Same with debugging and profiling skills But we might see a lot more specialization as a result

iterateoften 7mo ago
They can’t write maintainable code because they don’t have real world experience of getting your hands dirty in a company. The only way to get startup experience is to build a startup or work for one
- wongarsu 7mo ago
  Duh, the only way to get startup experience is indeed to get startup experience. My point is that getting into the weeds of writing CRUD software is not the only way to gain the ability to write complex algorithms, or to debug complex issues, or do performance optimization. It's only common because the stuff you make on the journey used to be economically valuable
  - iterateoften 7mo ago
    > write complex algorithms, or to debug complex issues, or do performance optimization That’s the stuff that ai is eating. The stuff I’m talking about (scaling orgs, maintaining a project long term, deciding what features to build or not build etc) is stuff very hard for ai
    - 8note 7mo ago
      I dont know if id call it "hard for ai" so much as "untreaded ground" agents might be better at it than people are, given the right structure
    - cweld510 7mo ago
      AI is only eating some of that though. For instance, everyone who does performance work knows that perhaps the most important part of optimization is constructing the right benchmark. This is already the thing that makes intractable problems tractable. That effect is now exacerbated — AI can optimize anything given a benchmark —- but AI isn’t making great progress at constructing the benchmark itself.
- tovej 7mo ago
  What. Are you saying maintainable code is specifically related to startups? I can accept companies as an answer (although there are other places to cut your teeth), but startups is a weird carveout.
  - Jensson 7mo ago
cmiles74 7mo ago
Do they need to write maintainable code? I think probably not, it's the research and discovering the new method that is important.

NiloCK 7mo ago

People would have said the same about graphing calculators or calculators before that. Socrates said the same thing about the written word. The determining factor is always "did I come up with this tool". Somehow, subsequent generations always manage to find their own competencies (which, to be fair, may be different). This isn't guaranteed to play out, but it should be the default expectation until we actually see greatly diminishing outputs at the frontier of science, engineering, etc.

lukev 7mo ago
I think that's too easy an analogy, though. Calculators are deterministically correct given the right input. It does not require expert judgement on whether an answer they gave is reasonable or not. As someone who uses LLMs all day for coding, and who regularly bumps against the boundaries of what they're capable of, that's very much not the case. The only reason I can use them effectively is because I know what good software looks like and when to drop down to more explicit instructions.
- yunwal 7mo ago
  Determinism just means you don't have to use statistics to approach the right answer. It's not some silver bullet that magically makes things understandable and it's not true that if it's missing from a system you can't possibly understand it.
  - lukev 7mo ago
    That's not what I mean. If I use a calculator to find a logarithm, and I know what a logarithm is, then the answer the calculator gives me is perfectly useful and 100% substitutable for what I would have found if I'd calculated the logarithm myself. If I use Claude to "build a login page", it will definitely build me a login page. But there's a very real chance that what it generated contains a security issue. If I'm an experienced engineer I can take a quick look and validate whether it does or whether it doesn't, but if I'm not, I've introduced real risk to my application.