4 ms·
It's likely the people that were not good developers that suddenly got accelerated "to the top" that seem the most for it. All of the good devs I know have been
by dawnerd 6mo ago
It's likely the people that were not good developers that suddenly got accelerated "to the top" that seem the most for it. All of the good devs I know have been a bit more cautious on the uptake.
- onion2k 6mo agoI think it's more subtle than that. There are a lot of measures of what a 'good developer' is, and one of them is 'shipping things'. AI is specifically accelerating that part of the industry - it's much easier to ship code faster now. If you're in a domain that doesn't need quality (easy horizontal scaling, bugs rarely have a critical impact, customers are relatively loyal) then AI is proving that shipping features is more important than code quality. If you're in a part of the software industry that needs well-optimized and bug-free code then it's less useful. The problem for devs is that those parts of the industry are much smaller.
- fortyseven 6mo agoFunny, I know quite a few extremely talented programmers who cautiously approached the topic, and found that, with proper use, they've found LLMs to be extremely useful. Just a matter of understanding where the boundaries are, and using them responsibly. It's not a magic genie, it augments their existing skill.