Hacker News Reader

Comment by rootusrootus | Hacker News Reader

More specifically, it is coming for coders. If you make your living by banging out lines of code all day, then you may want to be looking at adjusting your career trajectory. But if that is your job, you are either very junior, or a bit foolish for getting into that situation.

View on HN

so what is software developer doing if writing code is not part of their job

I don't see how not writing code is being offered as a moat, it seems like that is just translating business/stakeholder requirements to architecture/biz processes which is exactly the type of low hanging fruit that AI will capture first

or was it your point that the position sits closer to the stakeholders (relatively compared to those lifting) thus immune from replacement by AI

or is your argument that your taste is exquisite that no AI will be able to match it like it already has with software so far and it will not improve beyond the current state

So what a lab researcher doing if typing articles is not part of the job?

Well--well look. I already told you: I deal with the god damn customers so the engineers don't have to. I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?

https://www.reddit.com/r/ProductManagement/comments/uy1ot1/w...

If you get to senior level then most of your job probably is not writing code, but planning things out. The code is largely an implementation detail.

At least that's how it was for me, maybe other peoples' careers are different.

Yes, my career has been different. At my workplaces seniors still have to code because they dont want to hire juniors

The "planning things out" has moved to another layer, called "architects"

> If you get to senior level then most of your job probably is not writing code, but planning things out.

If they're so good at banging out code now, they're coming for that too, you know.

I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely.

That might happen, but I don't think it's implied, at least given literally every other bit of technology that has ever happened in history ever.

> I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely.

I am not assuming they'll continue indefinitely, but it's a small step from writing code to planning out the code to write, and another small step from planning a coding project to planning a software project, etc.

These are all small steps, and because the act of specification + planning paid less than specification + planning + programming, what reason do you have for thinking that specification + planning is valuable enough to keep the salaries the same as specification + planning + programming?

I think with a fixed size problem, no we wouldn't be able to demand the same salaries that we get now.

I dispute that the problem is fixed size. The people who are senior engineers now will learn how to think at a higher level with the AI models.

> The people who are senior engineers now will learn how to think at a higher level with the AI models.

I think my argument is that, if they were going to do that, they would have done so by now - they already say that actual coding was only a small percentage of their work anyway.

Same thing architects do if drawing lines gets automated: architecture.

Would you trust living in a high rise designed by AI?

Designing a system that survives production is the job.

I kind of view it this way. Yes, non-technical people can prompt and write code. But technical people can certainly also do the job of product people. So then, who would you want to do the end-to-end? A SWE, or a product person? Probably a SWE.

As software engineers, our job will expand horizontally. We will shift left, and right. But that’s really fine, because I’ve found SWE can be really good at that.

They’re good at requirements engineering. They’re good at quality assurance. They’re good at technical support. So, why not pay a SWE to be that person?

Or, at least, some SWEs are good at that. The ones that aren’t will struggle I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com