Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I'm simultaneously frustrated and I see a business opportunity - I now know that we senior folks are very far from replaceable - and soon there might be consulting to fix big problems. No one will say it's AI's fault necessarily - you'll just be living with painful complexity that works for a startup or an individual entrepreneur but not in an enterprise environment. To wit:
>The person adding Kafka should have been able to explain exactly why it was needed.
Here it is. People who don't know what they are doing are adding infrastructure layers they don't understand, can't envisage operationally in the future, and missing scalability. I'm seeing this. In fact I'm spending hours a week fighting it. I had to set up a call with a senior developer recently to explain why his prescriptive attempt to make infrastructure changes in his project can't be done with Claude like he did it.
It's playing wack-a-mole as the "velocity" has gone up of changes, and it's promulgated by every manner of product manager and senior developer under an attempt to please the brass.
>The person who built the feature should have been able to explain where the data came from without sending a link to a Claude conversation.
And they won't - because it's too embarrassing when you see what Claude responded with and someone failed to question.
We're in a new era, that's for sure.
by mancerayder - People should realize that programming is not a liability. Programming per se is the actual creation of detailed knowledge by writing.
You get a task, how does it interact with all other invariants? What are the implications on data flow, processing and user workflows? You can rarely answer those questions beforehand, you step on them during programming as the formal language forces you to take them into account sooner or later.
If you outsource this knowledge-building you’re losing the steering ability when stuff hits the fan. You lose the ability to navigate the code properly in order to identify bug or violations of invariants.
LLM optimize locally, that’s their nature. Invariants are often implicitly scattered around the whole code base. Explaining them to the LLM is much more tedious than just to write the code in the first place. At least for me as I have much better expression-ability in Code than in natural language when it comes to describing any form of computation.
by devdude1337 - I have witnessed first hand this and must say is a disaster, the person that came up with a fix to an issue that I didn't understand tried everything to convince me that the automated fix works.
Indeed the fix did work, but when I asked him to explain me the problem and the fix he started to use the prompt to get answers.
At that point I just let it go, the only thing that I mentioned later on is that I'm ok with pushing that to prod if that was ordered to me but I'm not responsible for it.
I prefer to keep the bug live until I fully understand the problem, reproduce it, come up with a solution and maybe just maybe perform a check against what a computer generated.
Please note that the bug came from a real human code base but being complex and not familiar with that part of the code (moreover the code was handed to us without any type of support/documentation) rendered me in a weak position where I couldn't come up with a solution so far.
How can someone trust so much a computer generated hotfix without fully understanding a problem is what still baffles me.
Still resisting to use any aided coding, no LLM is not going to steal the capacity to use my brain. The day I'm forced to used these tools, the day I quit.
by liendolucas - This is a problem for sure. I don't care what writes the code, but if I commit it or approve the merge, I need to be able to explain it, full stop. I don't need go line by line, just point and explain this does this does that which leads to that.
If "can you explain this?" is a question a direct report has to put into a prompt, they are failing at their job.
by efields - Now the question is - no one was born good or best engineer/programmer/scientist. Often it was a long path of sleepless nights, daily grinding, failing million times, doing dumb mistakes along the way, the usual package of suffering sometimes called "experience". What is the path now for the next generation of good or best engineers? There will be no opportunities/budget to do the same anymore.by xvilka
- That's not an interesting question, it'll be the same path as before but somewhat longer.by Kinrany
- "The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill, while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth"by doron
- It’s difficult to have spent a long time learning something, only for that thing to suddenly become accessible to anyone; something that was once scarce and valuable is now abundant and cheap.
There are still machinists doing things by hand, but for real production or prototyping, most will now use a 5-axis CNC machine. It still requires an operator of sorts, but much of the work that once required skilled manual machining is now done by CNC.
I think the same thing is happening here; it’s just that the transition is messy.
Give it five years, and how we get to the end result will not matter nearly as much as it does now. A messy codebase will be irrelevant, as it will be something managed and controlled by the LLM, written in a way optimised for itself, not for you or I.
by level87 - > how we get to the end result will not matter nearly as much as it does now
Sure, just wait for the poors to stop rebelling. It will all be over soon.
by johnnyanmac - This is exactly right, thank you for saying it. Nice example with the CNC machine too.
- > it will be something managed and controlled by the LLM, written in a way optimised for itself, not for you or I.
At that point we might as well invent an LLM-optimized language to use.
by rootusrootus - But CNC machining still requires a ton of physical skills. Its true that you maybe aren't planning out and executing every single tool pass by hand but there is still a tremendous amount of knowledge and physical skill that goes into setting up, indicating parts, etc.by solomonb
- My understanding of manual machining in the modern day is that only really big or really specialty jobs (as in, just a weird process that there isn’t a good CNC machine for) are done manually anymore. But specialty and low volume, which is exactly where LLMs are nice because I can spec it exactly how I want. I wonder what the software equivalent of “big” is. Like, you need a part made on a lathe with a 3 foot diameter throat, only one guy in a 500 mile radius has a machine that big, from 1962, so he’s your guy. That guy can stay in business with manual machining. But standard, high volume parts need to be on CNC to be competitive.by edot
- > You were never expected to understand every service and every database. But at least someone did and would explain it to you.
I agree with most of this except this. Think there’s some rose tinted glasses here or I’ve got bad luck over time.
Life before ai was bad as well. There wasn’t any one to explain to you anything! You had to figure it out yourself. The people either already left or was busy with something else.
No one wrote tests (to my standard). Most of the ops works was skipped. Docs were just not there. Nobody linted properly. Just bad mannnn
by aabdi - It’s just the typical BS where a Hacker News wants to feel smarter than they areby uncivilized
- +1
the vpn is called dev-test-prod and some containers are stored in a dev subscription, but still used in production. Some intangible network error forces you to use the production cluster for testing (the bucket is at least called test).
I feel this kind of setup is invariant everywhere I go to do engineering. Fable level intelligence has no effect!
by estetlinus - If there is any positive to be had from this, it's that we finally started documenting the codebases for AI as we should have always done it for other teammates.by Kuraj
- >AI makes projects with weak engineering culture fail much faster.
>There used to be a time when people sat down and talked about how they'd do something. Now they can just prompt an agent for a few hours and open a PR.
>The most tragic aspect of this way of working is that, to the untrained eye, it works.
>If you pull the branch and test it, you'll probably get something somewhat functional. So what do they do? They keep going. Again and again. Until the project reaches a point where no one knows how anything works.
Isn't this the opposite of failing faster, it lets people who would have never made it past the first few hurdles and give up get deep in and then the false hope that they can then prompt their way out of whatever mess resulting in deeper and deeper spaghetti.
by whywhywhywhy - > Now they can just prompt an agent for a few hours and open a PR.
Bruh..I haven't consistently sat at my computer for even a hour at a time to code for a decade..people spend that much time in Claude??
by whateveracct - But now they can now move so fast that nobody has a realistic chance to stop them before the damage compounds. They get into a much deeper mess much faster.
- Between AI and competing against the world with H-1B, it's really never been harder to get an entry or mid-level software engineering job.
Which means our pipeline to senior engineer is completely broken.
- There are 100K H1-Bs a year and 4 million grads a year in the US. Anyone who thinks H1-Bs are actually contributing to their inability to find a job is a moron.by iLoveOncall
- People have been fretting about 'foreigners' taking their jobs for decades and it never really happened. This is all about LLM's.
I mean, think about it; just a few short years ago there was a very strong market for software engineers, despite outsourcing and immigration being very much part of the landscape.
by davidw - I disagree with pipeline being broken.
Now with agents, you can get really bad (vibe coded) code bases in a week.
Before, to get this kind of experience, you had to work in a company for at least 2 or 3 years.
by whazor - Even the senior, staff, and principal levels are a wild gamble where you're lucky to get any acknowledgment after applying, even with a strong profile.by docmars
- What if the new entry level is what we consider senior today? Isn't it possible today to obtain entry/mid level skills with LLMs? I wonder if things will shift more in that direction.by bryzaguy
- For some reason people never mention this, but aren't there also much more people graduating with CS degrees than ever before?
- I think the field is basically over as a long term career unless you are truly exceptional. It will become very easy to build most software, and the upper end will be filled with the top people in the country/from abroad.
Wages are certainly going down for most software roles
by mikert89 - Technology has been doing this for decades. I think a lot of our "K shaped economy" discourse is about the bifurcation of the upper middle class creating downwardly mobile educated young people. Nobody in my wife's immediate family finished college. She and all of her cousins are quite indisputably better off than their parents. My father in law drove a forklift at a soup factory. My sister in law is studying to be a nurse. It's a big step up. But the "white collar" middle class has become very winner-take-all. To use an example from my field, if your dad was a partner at a regional law firm, that path probably isn't open to you. Technology enabled consolidation and scaling, so you don't need lawyers in every city in the U.S. to be able to handle legal work there. Lawyers at national firms serving Wall Street clients are making more money than ever, but the drop below that has become pretty precipitous. The same has happened to small businesses all over the country competing with Amazon, etc. It's had a huge impact on the petit bourgeoisie.
Of course, this is economically efficient. Nobody is going to give up Amazon same-day-delivery so that some local small business owner's kids can live better than the median person.
by rayiner - I think you agree with Marx ;)
> The petite bourgeoise sink[s] gradually into the proletariat, partly because their diminutive capital does not suffice for the scale on which Modern Industry is carried on, and is swamped in the competition with the large capitalists, partly because their specialized skill is rendered worthless by new methods of production.
by ychnd