Helpful to me and millions of others. Soon to be billions even.
You are employed because somewhere in the pipeline there are paying customers. They don't care about unit tests, they care about having their problems solved. Beware of AI.
You are employed because somewhere in the pipeline there are paying customers. They don't care about unit tests, they care about having their problems solved. Beware of AI.
We are all very aware of the fact that customers pay us... it seems totally strange to be that you think we wouldn't be aware of this fact. I suspect this is where the disconnect comes in, much to the point of the article - you seem to think that engineers just write tests and code, but the article points out how silly that is, we spend most of our time thinking about our customers, features, user experience, and how to match that to the technology choices that will allow us to build, maintain, and support systems that meet customer expectations.
I think people outside of engineering might be very confused about this, strangely, but engineers do a ton of product work, support work, etc, and our job is to match that to the right technology choices.
Look, no one wanted to write code for you idk what to tell you. Now you can have AI do that for you. Congrats, best of luck. Whatever weird personal issue you have, I doubt anyone was not working for you out of some whatever this perceived snobbery is and it's just like... we all have jobs?
All other workers have had to go through this when their fields became more automated and efficient. A cargo ship used to have hundreds of crew, now it's a dozen and the amount of cargo on a ship is ten times more.
So I will absolutely not cry for a software dev who has to make changes in the face of AI competition. If they're too precious to adapt or take a different job, then starve.
> Look, no one wanted to write code for you idk what to tell you. Now you can have AI do that for you. Congrats, best of luck.
Me and hundreds of thousands of other organizations who have software needs that were under served by the market. Now we will have AI write that code for us - or more realistically, now we will purchase this software from any of the thousands of boutique software development shops that will emerge, which use AI + talented human developers to serve us.
I have the strong impression that programmers in many cases have a good deal of snobbery regarding what tasks they are willing to work on. If it's not giant enterprise software, then it's usually just filed under "hobbyist" or open source. Hopefully many programmers will find a well paying career serving less glamorous customers with software that solves real world problems. But many will have to change their attitude if they want to do that.
Yeah I mean I think everyone is with you except for the "then starve", this is just weirdly combative and lacking in empathy, I find it totally strange.
> Me and hundreds of thousands of other organizations who have software needs that were under served by the market.
And... you blame software developers for that? You blame software devs for a lack of capacity in the field? So weird.
> Now we will have AI write that code for us - or more realistically, now we will purchase this software from any of the thousands of boutique software development shops that will emerge, which use AI + talented human developers to serve us.
Okay, I mean, this has always been an option. I guess it will be more of an option now. There have been consulting agencies or "WYSIWYG" editors like Wix or other "low code/ no code" platforms for ages. No one is going to be upset that you're using them. This hostility is totally one sided lol
> I have the strong impression that programmers in many cases have a good deal of snobbery regarding what tasks they are willing to work on.
We like to work on interesting projects... is that surprising? Is that snobbery? I don't get it.
> If it's not giant enterprise software, then it's usually just filed under "hobbyist" or open source.
I find this funny because hobbyist/ open source projects are by far the ones that are glamorized by the field, not enterprise software.
> Hopefully many programmers will find a well paying career serving less glamorous customers with software that solves real world problems. But many will have to change their attitude if they want to do that.
I have no idea where you get this impression from. Most software devs I've worked with are motivated heavily by solving real world problems. I think you have very, very little insight into what software development actually looks like or what software engineers are motivated by. Frankly, this comes off as very much "I was snubbed and now I'm happy that the people who I perceive as having snubbed me will be replaced by AI", which I think is quite lame. You definitely seem to have a resentful tone to your posts that I find weird.
> And... you blame software developers for that?
I don't blame them. They had more lucrative ventures to tend to. Now that under served market segments can be served with the help of AI, then they shouldn't complain.
You mention making web sites, but this is probably the only field in computing where the market has a lot of offerings to customers from all segments. If I need a website I don't have to use Wix, there is an endless supply of freelancers or small, medium, or big studios that offer their services. The same cannot be said of other bespoke software needs.
BTW, you are hearing a lot more hostility in my comments than is actually there.
> We like to work on interesting projects... is that surprising? Is that snobbery? I don't get it.
Yes it is snobbery. Other skilled professionals generally do not have that option, they have to do the boring stuff as well. And if you only like to work on interesting projects, then why are people complaining that AI is taking their jobs?
Regarding hobbyist / open source, I mean that when software devs aren't working on big enterprise style projects as a job, they tend to work on enterprise style projects as open source, or just play with hobbyist projects. Servicing smaller customers with bespoke software seems to be considered a little bit beneath the programmer dignity.
And it's not my personal experience talking. Consider how many studios are offering bespoke software for small businesses, compared to how many studios are offering websites for small businesses. There's a huge gap, that is probably going to be filled in some way pretty soon.
This is silly equivocation. I'm telling you that your statement lacks empathy, and you're making vague, unclear gestures to an entire field.
Anyway, reading your post it's clear that you have a rather pathetic grudge because software devs weren't interesting in working with you and now you get to grin gleefully as you see AI take away jobs. You obviously have zero insight into software development as a practice, nor how software devs think - this is glaringly obvious by your detraction that software devs give software away for free as somehow snobbery because they wouldn't work on whatever project you clearly hold a grudge over. Further, your comments from start to finish demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the job actually entails.
> BTW, you are hearing a lot more hostility in my comments than is actually there.
Maybe so! I can't tell you what you actually think, but it comes off as really pathetic, so maybe reread your post and consider why I'm hearing it.
Best of luck in your ventures.
But come on, people here are saying "who is going to buy products if we don't have jobs", as if they never gave a thought to other people who had their jobs automated away. That's a lack of empathy.
In many cases software is exactly what took away other people's jobs. Secretary used to be a common job, as well as "computer", which was a human making calculations.
But since you are a hacker and have to be always right, you have just descended into personal attacks now.
The irony of this statement is so silly. Once again, you clearly have hang ups.
I've explained everything I have to say.
With AI code we might get software that is an ugly mess underneath, but at least we have it. While human programmers are unwilling to provide this software for even a high price.
I could argue that people are better off having nothing to eat rather than having high quality food. But in reality something is better than nothing.
There is a gigantic market and a gigantic need of software in the field between hobbyist and enterprise. And AI code will serve that field. Software engineers like you are the people who can best exploit this market segment, probably by leveraging these new AI tools.
Otherwise more and more people will do like me and have AI make their own bespoke solutions.
You think that good engineering is unrelated to fulfilling needs at a price they pay? I think you're confused. Software engineers are tasked with exactly this problem - determining how to deliver utility at a price point. That's... the whole job. We consider how much it costs to run a database, how to target hardware constraints, how to build software that will scale accordingly as new features are added or new users onboard, etc. That's the job...
That's sort of the whole point of the article. The job isn't "write code", which is what AI does. The job is "understand the customer, understand technology, figure out how to match customer expectations, business constraints, and technologies together in a way that can be maintained at-cost".
> While human programmers are unwilling to provide this software for even a high price.
Sorry, but this is just you whining that people didn't want to work for you. Software engineers obviously are willing to provide software in exchange for money, hence... idk, everyone's jobs.
> And AI code will serve that field.
That may be true, just as no-code solutions have done in the past.
> Software engineers like you are the people who can best exploit this market segment, probably by leveraging these new AI tools.
Yes, I agree.
> Otherwise more and more people will do like me and have AI make their own bespoke solutions.
I'm a bit skeptical of this broadly in the long term but it's certainly the case that some portion of the market will be served by this approach.
So it is with software.
You might not need a blueprint if you’re building a shed in your back yard. This is the kind of software that and user might write or script themselves. If it’s kind of off nobody is going to get hurt.
In many cities in North America you can’t construct a dwelling with plumbing connections to a sewer and a permanent foundation without an engineer. And you need an engineer and a blueprint to get the license to go ahead with your construction.
Because if you get it wrong you can make people in the dwelling sick and damage the surrounding environment and infrastructure.
Software-wise this is where you’re handling other people’s sensitive data. You probably have more than one component that needs to interact with others. If you get it wrong people could lose money, assets could get damaged, etc.
This is where I think the software industry needs to figure out liability and maybe professionalize a bit. Right now the liability is with the company and the deterrents are basically no worse than a speeding ticket in most cases. It’s more profitable to keep speeding and pay off the ticket than to prevent harm from throwing out sloppy code and seeing what sticks.
Then if you are building a sky scraper… well yeah, that’s the large scale stuff you build at big tech.
There are different degrees of software with different requirements. While not engineers by professional accreditation, in practice I would say most software developers are doing engineering… or trying.
What I agree with in the article is that AI tools make bad engineering easier. That is for people building houses and skyscrapers who should be thinking about blueprints: they are working under assumptions that the AI is “smart” and will build sky-scrapers for them. They’re not thinking about the things they ought to be and less about things that will pass on to the customers: cost and a product that isn’t fit for use.
A bridge that falls down if you drive too fast over it isn’t a useful bridge even though it looks like a bridge.