Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- Wouldn't the logic to only hire Junior engineers if AI could do the work, what do you need the Senior salary for if they're both just asking AI to do things.
This is obviously assuming the ideology of an organization that would consider something like "We shouldn't be hiring engineers anymore" in the first place so they obviously have absolute trust in AI.
by whywhywhywhy - For now that won't work, based on my experience with LLMs, you still need a very senior engineer to prompt and review what was produced by the agent. A junior wouldn't have the experience to identify the flaws/issues.
In the future, yeah maybe, when LLMs are not as dumb as they are today.
by dudul - > The AI version of this argument is not a new insight. It’s an old (and mistaken) preference, wearing new clothes.
Everything sounds like AI now when you squint just a bit.
by scotty79 - very hard for junior engineers out there now.by potentdream
- There are too many new grads and the quality bar outside of target programs has dropped nor never existed to begin with.
And the target programs graduate around 15-20k EECS adjacent majors a year.
It's hard to justify hiring a (choosing random college) CS@Ouachita Baptist University grad for $140K TC (50th percentile for an entry level SWE) or even $100K TC [0] (25th percentile for an entry level SWE) unless they are truly an outlier.
For example, back in college I had a buddy who really didn't want to take our OS class because it was hard, so he used transferology and found an OS class offered by some random Christian university in Texas where the class assignments were either writing biblical analogies for system programming concepts like memory management or basic fizzbuzz level assignments. My alma mater's CS program ended up blacklisting that college when admin was working on transferring the credits for that class and began reviewing the class's curriculum.
While that is an extreme example, outside of target programs, the quality bar drops dramatically, and an entire generation of grads are truly unemployable at the current prevailing wages.
[0] - https://www.levels.fyi/t/software-engineer/levels/entry-leve...
by alephnerd - The "not hiring juniors" thing started before agentic LLMs were a thing, but it was close enough that it's easy to mistake it for causation. The fact that people retroactively attribute this explanation to an industry trend just reinforces it in people's minds, otherwise people might have tried to hire juniors again and realized that it's not such a bad idea. By not hiring juniors, you're putting mid-level work on seniors, who could otherwise be dedicating themselves to solving hard-and-expert-level problems. You're handicapping your company.by phendrenad2
- I don't understand when he says "the job has changed to using agents but human judgement is still required" and then goes on with that assumption will remain true for our lifetimes basically. But the elephant in the room is that's going away very soon right?
Think back to 2024 and how your job has changed over the last two years. It went from science fiction to reality. And as engineers surely we understand the concept of expotential growth. It's not just us outsiders using claude to make our code but internal anthropic engineers are using it to make claude itself better. (Probably they also use openai and gemini to double check stuff!) And that's the expotential loop. Does anyone really believe in 2028 human judgement will still be the thing?
by andrewfromx - Maybe if hypothetically all stakeholders express all of their concerns and desires clearly in channels AI can pick up constantly.by hectdev
- > Think back to 2024 and how your job has changed over the last two years.
The programming language became a lot more terse. I press the keys on the keyboard considerably less now. Otherwise, I don't see much difference. The human end hasn't changed. Neither I, nor do I expect anyone else here, was hired to be a monkey infinitely typing to produce Shakespeare in software, so the human end is what the job is and always was.
by win311fwg - This is a great example of a blog post that isn't obviously AI written, but that also doesn't make much sense.
> Not hiring junior engineers won't solve the problem you think you have
No payoff, what is the problem they think they have and why is it wrong?
> The junior engineer question rests on a few assumptions, and all of them are flawed.
No payoff, what are the assumptions and why are they flawed?
by randusername - I would have liked the article to address more specifically what skills will be needed in the future and how engineers of all levels will learn them. Senior engineers in my circle feel their own brainrot, and at the same time feel like super wizards combining our deep software knowledge with the amazing AI dev tools. How will the AI native engineers learn the things, do they need to learn the things, what does anybody need to learn anyway? Let’s talk about it.
- The problem I have: The CEO (and the investors, or the whole industry) is obsessed with ARR per employee. That's the key metric (in their mind).
It doesn't matter how much the employee costs. Let's assume you can hire two Juniors or one Senior for the same salary. If you have to optimize for ARR per employee - you can only hire one person. And if you have the choice between hiring a Junior or hiring a Senior... you're going to hire the Senior.
Goodhart's law fully applies here.
by cnj - When you say the "whole industry", which industry are you referring to? The entire technology sector? Venture-backed companies specifically? Growth-stage VC-backed specifically?
This claim is counterintuitive to me in many business contexts - ex. for an established privately-held company issuing dividends to the owners, what incentive do owners have to emphasize ARR per employee rather than net income?
by Antoniocl - This blogpost didn't really address the elephant in the room that increasingly the bottleneck is no longer the part that jr devs could help out with.
Every startup I know that hired some level of jr's and encouraged them to use AI found themselves in a code review bottleneck for basic code quality and architecture decisions. Many startups I know are largely forgoing jr devs.
Code quality regarding evolvability, reliability, maintainability is still part of the development process. All of the people who claimed src code is just assembly on Twitter some months ago have started chiming in that they were wrong.
I do wonder what this does to the talent pipeline like mentioned in the post.
by DetroitThrow - I'm not sure what the article actually has to say about the topic it presents. It seems to want to be something about not hiring junior talent (something by the way not restricted to the tech industry) but instead it ends up more a critique about people wanting to use a waterfall pipeline.by uberman
- I'm just staring at the title, wondering how this offensive, double-and-a-half-negative phrase made it all the way to the frontpage. I'm going to skip this one for that obvious reason.by 1970-01-01
- Double negative title implies clickbait :)by sscaryterry
- Pre-AI juniors were valuable because on many tasks, it was faster for me (senior eng) to write a quick spec have a conversation with a junior, and have them go off for a few hours or a few days and write the code, and then come back with it for review. I could do that with several junior engineers and pretty reasonably paralellize the work.
Now a junior takes my spec, drops it into Claude, and submits a PR a few minutes later. So I'm back to being the bottleneck -- there's constant pressure to provide specs and review code, and ultimately that process is just me having an indirect conversation with Claude (em dash is mine).
The junior is probably providing negative value, since it would be more efficient for me just to talk to Claude, and they're not learning anything, because it's really hard to learn anything by skimming code that's being pooped out by Claude.
I'm not sure what the solution to this is, I still think we need to train junior engineers. I think my best advice to juniors right now is stop using Claude so much. Use it to plan and answer questions, but you should still be writing code even it's slower. Because that's the only way they're going to learn enough to effectively guide AI and review output and get past being a net negative.
by mikeocool - SAT for junior developers; questions are code snippets and architectural decisions.by DANmode
- The other challenge with real people is the emotional aspect. Easier and faster to tell ai the code it wrote is terrible and needs to be redone completely, or maybe you just end the session and use a new model. Trickier to do with a human.
- Wherever I worked (and as long as it was up to me), the mindset and expectation was that a junior we hire will need to become a medior in max 2 years. Of course, we provided the right investment (environment, mentorship, coaching, learning budget). This also acted as a filter at hiring. This way the question was never "for today's tasks do we need a senior OR a junior".
About AI: Unless there's another breakthrough, AI is not getting significantly better. A junior with 2 years of proper training easily surpasses AI in judgment and arch design skills, etc. - and you will need seasoned engineers to make the calls and shepherd AI even. Where will those people come from if nobody is investing in juniors?
by ochronus - This, pretty much exactly what I've been noticing too. Feel for the juniors though, its rough trying to learn when the tool in front of you can just spit the whole answer out. I still think they're worth it, but tbh I just don't have a good answer yet for how to actually use them well, maybe just takes time to figure that out.
- > because it's really hard to learn anything by skimming code that's being pooped out by Claude.
I think this is pretty dubious. It's true that you have to do more proactive learning with an agentic workflow, but it doesn't mean you can't learn stuff. Software engineers forged in the age of AI are not learning the same things their predecessors did or thinking about code in the same way, but the more curious people will still be better at the job, which is I think how it's always been. It seems a little unclear how much "AI brain rot" will be a force unto itself that neuters even the smartest of the juniors, but I think it's still an open question.
by km144 - Do you think that its possible to raise the bar for junior engineers such that "you have AI now, so I need you to own farther up the review chain yourself"? I feel like I could answer either way. No, you need reps on projects to have that kind of judgement, that's what makes a senior. But also yes, while it will take the junior way longer to do that kind of review, they have the time to do it now, and its now the bottleneck so it makes sense to put their effort into that portion.
- I'm not sure I understand the logic that we wouldn't hire Juniors because now we have AI.
What jobs are Juniors doing that AI can now do? I don't get juniors to build me entire web sites or implement complicated agentic pieces of work. Most of the time, we hire Juniors to help fill the talent pool with the hope that they will be productive in a few months. If we think that we don't need to refill the pool now because of AI, then that is daft although I can understand a period where companies are deciding whether they still need 50 Developers instead of 20 + AI.
For me, the worst change for Juniors is remote working. I don't want the experience of newly qualified engineer being sitting in their bedroom all day chatting to people on Teams and not knowing when they can interrupt and when they can't. We used to have an office so we could at least do 2 days per week together but we don't any more. The banter, the office, the observation, the overhearing things is a critical part of both learning engineering and learning how to be part of a workplace.
by lbriner - Agreed wfh to me is just generally bad for any creative work but for a new person it must be taking aways years of development.
- > What jobs are Juniors doing that AI can now do?
I used to use the new hires to hold expertise so that I can spend a weekend at the beach without getting paged. That was the true selfish incentive in spending negative productivity where it takes me more time to teach than to do.
AI absorbs knowledge that the company can keep when I leave.
This used to be a capacity and bandwidth issue, as well as a timing issue with spare time.
I couldn't spend 9 PM to 11 PM on an odd Thu doing this with a human.
by gopalv - I guess a lot of this depends on whether you consider juniors to be part of your talent pool. Unless you are retaining them, it is just subsidizing industry at large to train them.
I stayed less than a year at my first two jobs. They bet wrong.
by MattGaiser - Totally agree about remote work for juniors. Even as a senior I feel like it's diminished some of my skills, in spite of all the benefits it brings.by danielvaughn
- > we hire Juniors to help fill the talent pool with the hope that they will be productive in a few months
The sad reality for smaller companies is that we cannot compete salary-wise, which means training juniors that will leave the minute they become productive
But mostly the issue is with the market, there are only so many things you need a junior to do in a body shop that is getting squeezed
Other companies are also cash constrained and need to pivot fast to "AI"-something, which juniors wont really help with on the short-term
by d0100