3 ms·

You're not going to get your old job back. You're a prompt engineer or you're fired. Programming will never go back to what it was before 2026.

by echelon 2mo ago

thothless 2mo ago
You're living in a corporate bubble, drowning in the kool-aid, along with half this forum.
- anonzzzies 2mo ago
  You are saying programming IS going to go back to what it was? If yes, great! But how exactly? Why would anyone do that and why would companies want that?
  - RealityVoid 2mo ago
    I think Op did not claime that "programming is going back to what it was" because even the point we should be going back to is not agreed where it should be. It's a profession always in flux. On the other hand, "you're a prompt engineer or you're fired" just reeks of psychosis. Things will change, they will never be the same, perhaps the profession will contract. But there sure as hell will still be people thinking deeply about their code and crafting it.
    - echelon 2mo ago
      The models got good at this seven months ago. Your hypothesis that your job is secure because the models hit a ceiling is based on seven months of observational history. We've been watching the models get progressively better for years now. It's not going to stop in place. In some amount of time from now, these models will absolutely require less hand holding. It's as though everyone with your perspective isn't looking at the overall trend line. You're laser focused on just these last few months.
      - RealityVoid 2mo ago
        And if it comes, it comes. I have no doubt a model can be as good or better than humans. I don't think humans are the peak of possibly. I just don't think the current crop of models will get there. And I do not think fast takeoff will happen. In the meantime, I keel hearing psychotic chants of "don't even read the code anymore, bro!" While the code these things output is severely lacking. At this point, it _is_ cool-aid.
        echelon 2mo ago
        > I keel hearing psychotic chants of "don't even read the code anymore, bro!" In just these seven months since Claude got good, I'm at $5M annualized at 65% MoM growth with 30% margins and plenty of opportunity to take that to 70%+. As a dev team of essentially one. You're in a new game. Stop thinking with preconceived notions and take full advantage of it. There are going to be a lot of winners and losers with this disruption. Don't lock yourself into the old regime because you grew up on newspaper.
        blanched 2mo ago
        I'd like to consider myself somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum on AI outlook, but posts like yours in this thread depress me. It's difficult for me not to see it as spreading FOMO so that you can gain financially. When's the last time you worked as an IC? Is there any reason to take your opinions on "my job" seriously when downward pressure on salaries is only beneficial to you and whatever AI companies you're attempting to start? "The world will be better off as a whole". Why do you think this? How are you contributing to making the world better with AI? Is there any reason that's not related to making money?
        echelon 2mo ago
        I'm trying to help you by sharing and you're choosing to be dark and gloomy about it. I can only help so much. What you did a few years ago will likely dry up as a source of supporting you and your family. There is all kinds of new value to create in the world. Find the calling that is meaningful to you. Go cure cancer instead of plumbing widgets and wizbobs at 100k QPS active-active five nines SLA. Just don't stay as a gas station pump attendant, butter churner, or elevator button presser. And it's also wild that you assume what I'm doing doesn't bring value to the world. There's a film being released theatrically in a few months that directly incorporates what I've worked on. I've been a filmmaker for decades outside of tech and that is deeply meaningful to me.
- brabel 2mo ago
  [dead]
eloisius 2mo ago
If the job is now being a promoter, how can you not see that it’s a low skill, low pay job anyway? There are a billion capable promoters in LCOL countries that can prompt as good as someone in the Bay. Might not be worth stressing so hard to be a promptmaxxer. Could just become a bus driver or some other skilled profession if you want to keep earning a living.
- black_knight 2mo ago
  I don’t think this is actually true, though. In fact, I believe the opposite. My experience with LLM assisted coding is that I need a technical hand on the steering wheel to get something workable out it. Otherwise, what comes out is a brittle, non-functional mess that only in the most tenuous way resembles what I had in mind. The job was never to type the code out. The job was always to take a problem in the real world, and shape it into a model which can be implemented in software. What LLMs do not do is to architect a system of suitable complexity to the scope of the problem. If you give a low skill worker the job of writing the prompts you will first get a prototype. Then a prototype with more features tacked on. Then a prototype with so many features tacked on that it breaks under its own weight. Software engineers know system design, and can adapt the system design to the scope of the problem. Are we creating a single piece which will eventually expand into a big system, we need to design completely differently from if we are creating a robust stand-alone thing, which just needs to do one thing and do that one thing really well. If anything, we will need stricter skill requirements for software engineers. Just because anyone can produce code which runs now, does not mean we should let anyone loose on creating the critical software infrastructure of our society.
  - skydhash 2mo ago
    > The job was never to type the code out. The job was always to take a problem in the real world, and shape it into a model which can be implemented in software. "Typing" the code was never the whole job, and it can be the easiest part. But "the code" is very much the artifact that is used to generate values. It being correct and easy to maintain lower the associated costs and MAY raise its value. It being brittle and hard to maintain raise the associated costs and WILL lower its value. So being good at system design is how you target the first case.
grey-area 2mo ago
Many programmers still just write programs, using tools where it is useful. Of course programming never stands still. I don’t think anyone thinks it will rewind. But your second sentence is very odd. Your extraordinary claim may reflect life in certain companies in SV in the grip of AI Psychosis, but most companies are evaluating these tools objectively - they are certainly not ready to perform as agents or replace humans, and it is debateable whether they are providing much efficiency boost in the case where you try to replace humans writing code entirely - there are definitely significant downsides - loc inflation, lack of context, incorrect code which appears correct, wasted time, burnout of supervising humans having to read the output etc etc. All the thought leaders like this article jumping to the shining future of independent agents cooperating under light human supervision are vastly premature - LLMs are nowhere near intelligent or independent enough for that.

You're not going to get your old job back. You're a prompt engineer or you're fired. Programming will never go back to what it was before 2026.

by echelon 2mo ago

You're not going to get your old job back. You're a prompt engineer or you're fired. Programming will never go back to what it was before 2026.

thothless 2mo ago

You're living in a corporate bubble, drowning in the kool-aid, along with half this forum.

anonzzzies 2mo ago
You are saying programming IS going to go back to what it was? If yes, great! But how exactly? Why would anyone do that and why would companies want that?
- RealityVoid 2mo ago
  I think Op did not claime that "programming is going back to what it was" because even the point we should be going back to is not agreed where it should be. It's a profession always in flux. On the other hand, "you're a prompt engineer or you're fired" just reeks of psychosis. Things will change, they will never be the same, perhaps the profession will contract. But there sure as hell will still be people thinking deeply about their code and crafting it.
  - echelon 2mo ago
    The models got good at this seven months ago. Your hypothesis that your job is secure because the models hit a ceiling is based on seven months of observational history. We've been watching the models get progressively better for years now. It's not going to stop in place. In some amount of time from now, these models will absolutely require less hand holding. It's as though everyone with your perspective isn't looking at the overall trend line. You're laser focused on just these last few months.
    - RealityVoid 2mo ago
      And if it comes, it comes. I have no doubt a model can be as good or better than humans. I don't think humans are the peak of possibly. I just don't think the current crop of models will get there. And I do not think fast takeoff will happen. In the meantime, I keel hearing psychotic chants of "don't even read the code anymore, bro!" While the code these things output is severely lacking. At this point, it _is_ cool-aid.
      - echelon 2mo ago
        > I keel hearing psychotic chants of "don't even read the code anymore, bro!" In just these seven months since Claude got good, I'm at $5M annualized at 65% MoM growth with 30% margins and plenty of opportunity to take that to 70%+. As a dev team of essentially one. You're in a new game. Stop thinking with preconceived notions and take full advantage of it. There are going to be a lot of winners and losers with this disruption. Don't lock yourself into the old regime because you grew up on newspaper.
        blanched 2mo ago
        I'd like to consider myself somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum on AI outlook, but posts like yours in this thread depress me. It's difficult for me not to see it as spreading FOMO so that you can gain financially. When's the last time you worked as an IC? Is there any reason to take your opinions on "my job" seriously when downward pressure on salaries is only beneficial to you and whatever AI companies you're attempting to start? "The world will be better off as a whole". Why do you think this? How are you contributing to making the world better with AI? Is there any reason that's not related to making money?
        echelon 2mo ago
        I'm trying to help you by sharing and you're choosing to be dark and gloomy about it. I can only help so much. What you did a few years ago will likely dry up as a source of supporting you and your family. There is all kinds of new value to create in the world. Find the calling that is meaningful to you. Go cure cancer instead of plumbing widgets and wizbobs at 100k QPS active-active five nines SLA. Just don't stay as a gas station pump attendant, butter churner, or elevator button presser. And it's also wild that you assume what I'm doing doesn't bring value to the world. There's a film being released theatrically in a few months that directly incorporates what I've worked on. I've been a filmmaker for decades outside of tech and that is deeply meaningful to me.
brabel 2mo ago
[dead]

eloisius 2mo ago

If the job is now being a promoter, how can you not see that it’s a low skill, low pay job anyway? There are a billion capable promoters in LCOL countries that can prompt as good as someone in the Bay. Might not be worth stressing so hard to be a promptmaxxer. Could just become a bus driver or some other skilled profession if you want to keep earning a living.

black_knight 2mo ago
I don’t think this is actually true, though. In fact, I believe the opposite. My experience with LLM assisted coding is that I need a technical hand on the steering wheel to get something workable out it. Otherwise, what comes out is a brittle, non-functional mess that only in the most tenuous way resembles what I had in mind. The job was never to type the code out. The job was always to take a problem in the real world, and shape it into a model which can be implemented in software. What LLMs do not do is to architect a system of suitable complexity to the scope of the problem. If you give a low skill worker the job of writing the prompts you will first get a prototype. Then a prototype with more features tacked on. Then a prototype with so many features tacked on that it breaks under its own weight. Software engineers know system design, and can adapt the system design to the scope of the problem. Are we creating a single piece which will eventually expand into a big system, we need to design completely differently from if we are creating a robust stand-alone thing, which just needs to do one thing and do that one thing really well. If anything, we will need stricter skill requirements for software engineers. Just because anyone can produce code which runs now, does not mean we should let anyone loose on creating the critical software infrastructure of our society.
- skydhash 2mo ago
  > The job was never to type the code out. The job was always to take a problem in the real world, and shape it into a model which can be implemented in software. "Typing" the code was never the whole job, and it can be the easiest part. But "the code" is very much the artifact that is used to generate values. It being correct and easy to maintain lower the associated costs and MAY raise its value. It being brittle and hard to maintain raise the associated costs and WILL lower its value. So being good at system design is how you target the first case.

grey-area 2mo ago

Many programmers still just write programs, using tools where it is useful. Of course programming never stands still. I don’t think anyone thinks it will rewind. But your second sentence is very odd. Your extraordinary claim may reflect life in certain companies in SV in the grip of AI Psychosis, but most companies are evaluating these tools objectively - they are certainly not ready to perform as agents or replace humans, and it is debateable whether they are providing much efficiency boost in the case where you try to replace humans writing code entirely - there are definitely significant downsides - loc inflation, lack of context, incorrect code which appears correct, wasted time, burnout of supervising humans having to read the output etc etc. All the thought leaders like this article jumping to the shining future of independent agents cooperating under light human supervision are vastly premature - LLMs are nowhere near intelligent or independent enough for that.