throw1235435

Sure. I just know in most companies (seeing the numbers on projects in a number of them across industries now) funding projects which give time for people to think, ponder, publish white papers of new techniques is rare and economically not justifiable against other investments.

Put it this way - to have a project where people have the luxury to scratch their heads for awhile and to bet on something that may not actually be possible yet is something most companies can't justify to finance. Listening to the story of the transformer invention it sounds like one of these projects to me.

They may stand on the shoulders of giants that is true (at the very least they were trained in these institutions) but putting it together as it was - that was done in a commercial setting with shareholder funds.

In addition given the disruption to Google in general LLM's have done I would say, despite Gemini, it may of been better cost/benefit wise for Google NOT to invent the transformer architecture at all/yet or at least not publish a white paper for the world to see. As a use of shareholders funds the activity above probably isn't a wise one.

> Expertise and craft and specialized knowledge can become irrelevant in a heartbeat, so your meaning and joy and purpose should be in higher principles.

My meaning could be in higher purposes; however I still need a job to be enable/pursue those things. If AI takes the meaning out of your craft it takes out the ability to use it to pursue higher order principles as well for most people, especially if you aren't in the US/big tech scene with significant equity to "make hay while the sun is still shining".

Jevons paradox I doubt applies to software sadly for SWE's; or at least not in the way they hope it does. That paradox implies that there are software projects on the shelf that have a decent return on investment (ROI) but aren't taken up because of lack of resources (money, space, production capacity or otherwise). In general unlike physical goods usually the only resource lacking is now money and people which means the only way for more software to be built is lower value projects now stack up.

AI may make low ROI projects more viable now (e.g. internal tooling in a company, or a business website) but in general the high ROI and therefore can justify high salary projects would of been done anyway.

If we had done what you say (distribute wealth more evenly between people/corporations) more to the point I don't know if AI would of progressed as it has - companies would of been more selective with their investment money and previously AI was seen at best as a long shot bet. Most companies in the "real economy" can't afford to make too many of these kind of bets in general.

The main reason for the transformer architecture, and many other AI advancements really was "big tech" has lots of cash that they don't know what to do with. It seems the US system punishes dividends as well tax wise; so companies are incentivized to become like VC's -> buy lots of opportunities hoping one makes it big even if many end up losing.

As I mentioned in another comment they smell blood in our profession, and as entities dependent on investor/VC/seed money rounds they want it. There's a reason every new model that comes out has a blog post "best at coding" often in their main headline - its also a target that people outside of tech don't really care about IMO unlike for example art and writing.

Tbh if it wasn't for coding disruption I don't think the AI boom would of really been that hyped up.

That's easy. If I don't use it I won't be competitive; however I and probably many others would prefer a world where NO ONE has it as it would be a better overall outcome. For a lack of a better term I would call these "negative innovations". Most of these inventions:

- Require you to use it (hard to opt out due to network effects and/or competitive/survival pressure) AND

- Are overall negative for most of society (with some of the benefit accruing to the few who push it). There are people that benefit but arguably as a whole we are worse off.

These inventions have one thing in common; overall their impact is negative, but it is MORE negative for the people who don't use it and generally they only benefit an in-crowd of people if any (e.g. inventors). Social media for me on many scales is arguably an obvious example of this where the costs exceed the benefits often, nuclear weapons are another.

> No: people that care to understand the whole stack, and be able to provide that value, will still exist and shine.

I hope so. But I don't believe so. I think us SWE's will find a way to disrupt that too as we all rush for the exits before this industry sinks.

The biggest barrier previously to anything (not just SWE) was the fact that like everything worth it in life; it takes work to see results. Generally people are time/resource poor and have to spend their own time or outsource the effort to get something - which limits the things they can do.

AI takes that away for SWE relative to other fields. People can get instant gratification now and "do it themselves" and given cost/benefit will prefer other fields now and want to spend their time elsewhere. At scale there will still be jobs for things people don't want to manage themselves but they will be more routine and busy work - not high salary skills based.

I think the models, if they continue to get better, and frameworks/service patterns change to accommodate AI's. Where pieces of code will be thrown away, etc because the new code will be designed to slowly accommodate the "big ball of mud" risk.

We are moving from a conceptual/model job which typically requires training and skills (i.e. the code model/tool use/etc meets the requirements) to simply validation which is an easier problem and/or can be sharded in other roles. In other words the engineering part (i.e. the fun part) will be left to the AI. What I've found is people types (e.g. managers), and QA types (if it works, I don't care, this is what needs to work) will do well. People who liked the craftsman ship, solving problems, etc will do worse. Pure tech IMO will be less and less of a career.

Its simple. Given the trajectory of these things people feel under threat and defend themselves accordingly. They say what they hope for given a number of factors (bad workplaces generating slop they have to deal with, job losses, identity redefinition, etc). You know the things that happen when a profession is disrupted in a capitalist system where 'what you do' is often tied up with identity, status, and livelihood.

People will go from skeptic to dread/anxiety, to either acceptance or despair. We are witnessing the disruption of a profession in real time and it will create a number of negative effects.

Agree with this. The RLVR changes (starting with o1 I think) was what changed/disrupted the industry. Before that I thought these things were just better autocomplete.

I don't think that will happen because it hasn't for other technological improvements. In the end people pay for "good enough" and that's that. If "good enough" is now cheaper to implement that's all they will do. I've seen it in other technologies. As an example due to more precise manufacturing many manufacturers have used it to cheapen things like cars, electronics, etc just to the point where it passes warranty mostly; in the old days they had to "overbuild" to get it to that point putting more quality into the product.

Quality is a risk mitigation strategy; if software is disposable just like cheap manufactured goods most people won't pay for it thinking they can just "build another one". What we don't realise is due to sheer cost of building software we've wanted quality because its too expensive to fix later; AI could change that.

Hoping we invest in quality, more software (which has a price inelastic curve mostly due to scale/high ROI) etc I'm starting to think is just false hope from people in the tech industry that want to be optimistic which generally is in our nature. Tech people understand very little about economics most of the time and how people outside tech (your customers) generally operate. My reflection is mostly I need to pivot out of software; it will be commoditized.

I'm not sure that it will scale to other fields other than coding and math. The approach with RLVR makes it more amenable to STEM fields in general and most jobs believe it or not aren't that. The level of open source software with good test suites effectively gave them all the training material they needed; most professions won't provide that knowing that they will be giving their moat away. LLM's to other fields from my understanding still exhibit the same hallucination rates if only mildly improved especially if there isn't public internet material in that field.

We have to accept in the end that coding/SWE is one of the most disrupted fields from this breed of AI. Disruption unfortunately probably means less jobs overall. The profession is on trend to disrupting and automating itself I think; plan accordingly. I've seen so many articles claiming its great we didn't learn to code now; that's what the AI's have done.

I'm wondering if the ROI will be worth it anytime soon for anything other than coding, and anything that can be publically scraped of the internet. Or more to the point things that are at a enterprise level and require paid staff to train the model for a particular domain at an expert level of quality - and the ROI of such a task to be positive.

The thing is none of this is really happening under typical economic assumptions like ROI, rate of return, net PV, etc.

You see - on a pure ROI basis none of this should of existed. Even for coding I think - a lot of this is fuelled by investor money and even if developers took up the tooling I'm not sure it would pay off the capital investment. DeepMind wouldn't of been funded by Google, transformers would of never been invented if it was just based on expected ROI, etc. Most companies can't afford engineers/AI researchers on the side "just in case" it pays off especially back then when AI was a pie in the sky kind of thing. The only reason why any of this works is because Big Tech has more money than they can invest, and the US system punishes dividends meaning companies can justify "expected bad" investments as long as they can be dressed up and some pay off. They almost operate like internal VC's/funds because they had the money to do so.

This allows "arms race" and "loss leading" dynamics to take hold and be funded - which isn't about economics as much anymore. Most other industries/domains don't have the war chest or investors with very very deep pockets to make that a reality.

Sadly I think we as SWE's think it will also be other professions; what if instead we just disrupted our own profession and a few other smaller targets?

Its hard to imagine now but the code won't matter. We will have other methods of validating the product I think; like before tech. There are many ways to validate something; this is an easier problem than creation (which these AI models are somewhat solving right now)

All very demoralizing but I can see the trend. In the end all "creative" parts of the job will disappear; AI gets to do the fun stuff.

We invented something that devalues the human craft and contribution -> if you weren't skilled in that and/or saw it as a barrier you win and are excited by this (CEO types, sales/ideas people, influencers, etc). If you put the hard yards in and did the work to build hard skills and built product; you lose.

Be very clear: AI devalues intelligence and puts more value on what is still scarce (political capital, connections, nepotism, physical work, etc). It mostly destroys meritocracy.

You will get downvoted but I unfortunately agree with you; also as a SWE of similar tenure. People assume there's other things to jump to and yes in the short term there may be. But the industry already has those things on its roadmap to disrupt (i.e. generate more economic useful work).

For better or worse the software career is wounded, and the AI wolves can smell blood. Its low hanging fruit that they understand and in its disruption can make a lot of money.

As an industry is dying of disruption the leftover money is made in disrupting it first, this will speed up engineering efforts to kill the profession like rats in a sinking ship. Corporate stakeholders will also be the first to spend big on anything that does; they in my experience prefer communicators, and people accountable, not people who deliver.

It was a good ride. I could never of imagined this trajectory 3 years ago.

Nah; the only advantage that a software engineer has is that if they are experienced they've probably just a little bit bright. But their role will probably change to something other than a software engineer. Bright valuable people that care and are engaged are rare anyway. They may transition to a different role slowly (e.g. Product, QA, BA, etc) because they still offer value and know the domain, but it isn't traditional SWE. That's been disrupted by AI; I don't want it to be true and I'm hoping for something else; but reality is staring us in the face at the moment and it isn't fair to people to talk platitudes anymore. The fact that you have to write an article like this feels like defensive framing to me + illustrates what happens once a skill is devalued by people/society due to disruption; it proves to me where this is all heading.

My thought on why people especially juniors are just delivering slop: Why bother with quality? Why bother with the craft? When it will be disrupted by the next tool/AI model/etc in the next few years anyway? Just think short term - will this slop get you through the PR and tick a short term box? If so success - might not have a job long term anyway due to all the AI stuff. In fact if I keep ticking boxes I'm more likely to last than the other person given more job incentives. Just get paid today.

In your example a QA that is skilled at testing websites should pick up CORS issues for example. And the models will keep getting better and eventually give them harnesses too - and we SWE will slowly automate everything around this because the only lifeboat left for your career is to cash out hopefully by disrupting yourself (no unions, professional bodies, etc).

There are people posting on this website that are in that category; or in those companies. For example most people working outside America as a SWE who like the profession. The options to work for a place that gives stock options, and equity in general is small -> and generally in many countries is heavily penalised tax wise.

TL;DR: Code is the easy part; and at least in the last few years was rarely the bottleneck so even if we get rid of coding we don't deliver infinity amount of software. The "What to build" usually takes longer than building it. The amount will only go up where coding was holding things up or the main portion of time spent in delivering software (Hint: It usually isn't even 20% of the time in delivery times in my experience). There's many other stages to the SDLC and lots of processes even before then for large scale systems.

On your point about a consultancy; many of the software dev consultancies will dry up w.r.t work. There won't be success as you state -> after all if your consultancy can do it so can an LLM so why do I need you as the middleman? After all just get Claude/Gemini/etc to do it for small things; you are already seeing this effect in things like graphic design, copywriting and other small creative skills. For large things with large complexity and judgement you need domain experts and guardrails again and other non-coding jobs -> that slows things down considerably so but still better to be in those jobs than anything requiring intelligence now.

As a result coding could easily be automated entirely and we may only see for example 20% increase in total "large" software velocity. As I mentioned in another comment it will be the people in the chain who produce little value but are required for other reasons (e.g. compliance, due diligence, sales, consultants, etc) that will remain and will be the bottleneck. The people that techies thought offered little value and made up inefficiencies and didn't contribute at all -> they have the last laugh in the end and they have AI to thank for that.

Personally in my team I know we are seeing significant improvement to the point where hiring is no longer considered; I'm worried about our senior staff even. Anything that is labor, and not deciding "what to do" I feel I no longer need help with nearly as much. This is many components in a large public org. Feel like I only need two staff now, and that's more to understand the problem and what to do then the action of actually doing it; and a backup for accountability. If I hire more its only because we I can't keep up with the AI and am burning out, and I won't because I don't want to "hire to fire" later on if we run out of product work. It makes me anxious, and I can't recommend anyone with honesty to make this their career anymore; anything else feels more like false hope at this point.

I find it interesting that tech people think LLM's will automate most jobs other than software and other creative jobs. Its hard to imagine for us techies that billions if not trillions of investment is mostly targeting disrupting software engineering, artists, etc as the low hanging fruit. The industry mostly disrupted itself and gave a lesson to other industries as to what not to do.

In the end AI will take only the "fun jobs" initially -> the ones where the barrier was creativity and intelligence. Ironically all the boring, non fun and challenging/accountable tasks will remain. All those "auxiliary" jobs in tech firms and those corporate workers who mostly did admin and added little value while you pushed novel products will most likely remain somehow -> they were never judged/evaluated on value delivered so there's nothing to disrupt.

Its obvious why though. The typical "tech" culture values human ingenuity, creativity, intelligence and agency due to its history. Someone coming up with a new algorithm in their garage can build a billion dollar business - it is a indie hacker culture that historically valued "human intelligence".

i.e. it is a culture of meritocracy; where no matter your social connections, political or financial capital if you are smart and driven you can make it.

AI flips that around. It devalues human intelligence and moves the moats to the ol' school things of money, influence and power. The big winners are no longer the most hard working, or above average intelligence. Intelligence is devalued; as a wealthy person I now have intelligence at my fingertips making it a commodity rather than a virtue - but money, power and connections - that's now the moat.

If all you have is your talent the future could look quite scary in an AI world long term. Money buys the best models, connections, wealth and power become the remaining moats. This doesn't gel typically in a "indie hacker" like culture in most tech forums.

That's the real question IMO. Especially when everything that isn't deflationary with AI for the most part is getting much more expensive due to inflation globally. Save money on software, buy more blue collar goods.

If its an easy skill to learn, with little consequences if you get it wrong especially for small scale apps why pay for it? Don't know why seniors (of which I'm one) think they are immune to this.

Especially outside the US where having a 140 IQ isn't really enough to have a high wage. Only social EQ and high capital does that in most of the world.

That's only possible if you as the worker are capturing the efficiencies that the automation provides (i.e. you get RSU's, you have an equity stake in the business as well).

Believe it or not most SWE's and white collar workers in general don't get these perks especially outside the US where most firms have made sure tech workers in general are paid "standard wages" even if they are "good".

I think the point of the poster is that there's no need for them because as he puts it replace "the majority of engineers". Tech is about to be decimated - software as a field is about to shrink quite substantially. To be honest the way things are going it is possible IMO (although would severely disadvantage me) - 3 years ago given the amount of skill required and lifetime learning in it I would of never thought this. Why do you need juniors - well you may need them but with the oversatuation it will take maybe 20 years (a generation to retire) for the current crop of seniors to get exhausted given AI will decimate them too according to the OP. That's definitely a far enough away time for it to be someone else's problem - by then AI might be significantly better anyway; we could even have superintelligence and SWE jobs might be the least of our worries.

Great for the owners of tech companies and non-tech companies using tech (many non-technical, capital based who now scale with less cost base); not so great for people with tech skills who invested for their future. Which is the goal of these AI companies. Your pain/unemployment/cost is their profit/economic surplus.

To the OP its "exciting times" for capital - probably for many people however it seems like an impending nightmare is coming especially if they are relying on intellectual work to survive/provide/etc. Most CC articles on HN trend I've seen trend to the top; which shows it is definitely instigating either greed or fear in people. I would argue that "code" seems to be the most successful AI product to date - most others are just writing assistants, meme generators, risky operators, etc at least for me. Its code that seems to instigate this persistent fear.

On a side note, at least for me, AI has personally dissuaded me from learning/investing more in this career as a senior engineer with almost 20 years experience. I hope I'm wrong.

Pretty much. Everything is about prompt now. Its either "You aren't prompting right", or "Need to prompt harder/more accurately/etc". The only skill that matters now seems to be using a paid vendor product (pick your favorite proprietary AI chatbot) - which isn't really a long term skill at all nor really all that technical.

Whether its true or not it is besides the point - its getting kind of boring and it seems to be drowning everything else. It feels at least from the outside like a profession that used to require intelligence/skill, and something creative problem solving just went downhill fast. The anti-SWE crowd (e.g VC's, AI devs, CEO's, etc) seems to be winning the argument at the moment as to what the future will bring in these forums. Every podcast I hear its always software engineering that is mentioned as the industry to be disrupted away.

Who would of thought the job of the future only 5 years ago would be the first to go? Hope I'm wrong, but it seems the AI crowd's main target atm.

Its interesting that even people initially skeptical are now thinking they are on the "chopping block" so to speak. I'm seeing it all over the internet and the slow realization that what supposed to be the "top of the heap" is actually at the bottom - not because of difficulty of coding but because the AI labs themselves are domain experts in software and therefore have the knowledge and data to tackle it as a problem first. I also think to a degree they "smell blood" and fear, more so than greed, is the best marketing tool. Many invested a good chunk of time on this career, and it will result in a lot of negative outcomes. Its a warning to other intellectual careers that's for sure - and you will start seeing resistance to domain knowledge sharing from more "professionalized" careers for sure.

My view is in between yours: A bit of column A and B in the sense both outcomes to an extent will play out. There will be less engineers but not by the factor of productivity (Jevon's paradox will play out but eventually tap out), there will be even more software especially of the low end, and the ones that are there will be expected to be smarter and work harder for the same or less pay grateful they got a job at all. There will be more "precision and rigor", more keeping up required by workers, but less reward for the workers that perform it. In a capitalist economy it won't be seen as a profession to aspire to anymore by most people.

Given most people don't live to work, and use their career to also finance and pursue other life meanings it won't be viable for most people long term especially when other careers give "more bang for buck" w.r.t effort put into them. The uncertainty in the SWE career that most I know are feeling right now means to newcomers I recommend on the balance of risk/reward its better to go another career path especially for juniors who have a longer runway. To be transparent I want to be wrong, but the risk of this is getting higher now everyday.

i.e. AI is a dream for the capital class, and IMO potentially disastrous for social mobility long term.

Depends where you work. I've seen a lot of Java and .NET jobs around where I am. Having both jobs I find it easier to get performant code in .NET than Java (reified generics, value types, more primitives/less boxing in general, and other constructs not found in Java)

This may be unpopular/counter-intuitive to say, but in a capitalist world this is probably the best outcome IF (and I'm not saying I can predict the future) we expect the profession to die/be obsolete from a society POV - in such a world restricting juniors before they commit a whole career to that profession and invest too much resources into it is actually the outcome we probably want. Better than the alternative of even more mass unemployment later. If that's the case then giving people that info early, and avoiding more hiring/training now stops potential mal-investment of money and people's time into training/hiring/building careers in/etc.

It stops juniors investing their life/time/energy in a field that is shrinking and that will increasingly "not be worth it" w.r.t effort put in given their longer time horizon. This is how capitalism when working correctly can obsolete jobs somewhat charitably - it does it by closing the door on entry level jobs ideally when people have little to lose and haven't yet invested a lot of their life into it. For example they may still be young enough to re-train; or may be dismayed from entering the field due to disruption/chatter and so do something more appropriate in the new world.

Being hired in a sinking and increasingly more competitive field may actually be considered a "winner's curse" outcome, in that you will be in a industry highly competitive that is slowly sinking and is stressful with low opportunities for pay rises compared to other industries/skill sets - this is definitely playing your career in "hard mode". Most of all you will feel your skills, and value is useless relatively to people who got into more jobs with more scarcity playing life in "easy mode" with less stress and anxiety. In a few years time people getting into other fields may feel they "dodged a bullet" comparing themselves to others that did.

Being able to pivot while you are still young and ageism isn't a barrier yet is definitely something to consider remembering careers these days are multi-decades long. I feel for your kid now, and I do for mine, but I would rather than try something different in their 20's vs say their 40's when they have a mortgage, a family to feed, and/or other commitments and ageism makes it harder to pivot/re-train into another career. I don't wish my kids to feel the anxiety I and many people I know are feeling later in life especially for a career that requires constant effort to maintain and keep relevant in. I'm not recommending my kids learn what I do at all for example.

On my side we've refrained from hiring people/training people due to AI. Its mostly been a good decision especially at the frontend layer where those teams are starting to do more with less. Don't get me wrong - I don't like the path the SWE profession is going and I'm not an AI fan for a variety of reasons. But at the same time I don't want to over hire and have no work for the people to do (i.e. the bottleneck being business ideas, regulation, ability to iterate in our domain, etc rather than tech). I can't just "work faster" and "ship more" - you start hitting other bottlenecks. Over hiring is not a great problem to manage either; morale at the very least decreases as people have no work to do.

The people in those bottlenecks anecdotally are seeing pay increases btw which goes to show - the inefficient get the spoils.

> Software will get automated, and it already is, people just havent figured it out yet

To be honest I think this is most AI labs (particularly the American ones) not-so-secret goal now, for a number of strong reasons. You can see it in this announcements, Anthrophic's recent Claude 3.7 announcement, OpenAI's first planned agent (SWE-Agent), etc etc. They have to justify their worth somehow and they see it as a potential path to do that. Remains to be seen how far they will get - I hope I'm wrong.

The reasons however for picking this path IMO are:

- Their usage statistics show coding as the main user: Anthrophic recently released their stats. Its become the main usage of these models, with other usages at best being novelty or conveniences for people in relative size. Without this market IMO the hype would of already fizzled awhile ago at best a novelty when looking at the rest of the user base size.

- They "smell blood" to disrupt and fear is very effective to promote their product: This IMO is the biggest one. Disrupting software looks to be an achievable goal, but it also is a goal that has high engagement compared to other use cases. No point solving something awesome if people don't care, or only care for awhile (e.g. meme image generation). You can see the developers on this site and elsewhere in fear. Fear is the best marketing tool ever and engagement can last years. It keeps people engaged and wanting to know more; and talking about how "they are cooked" almost to the exclusion of everything else (i.e. focusing on the threat). Nothing motivates you to know a product more than not being able to provide for yourself, your family, etc to the point that most other tech topics/innovations are being drowned out by AI announcements.

- Many of them are losing money and need a market to disrupt: Currently the existing use cases of a chat bot are not yet impressive enough (or haven't been till very recently) to justify the massive valuations of these companies. Its coding that is allowing them to bootstrap into other domains.

- It is a domain they understand: AI dev's know models, they understand the software process. It may be a complex domain requiring constant study, but they know it back to front. This makes it a good first case for disruption where the data, and the know how is already with the teams.

TL;DR: They are coming after you, because it is a big fruit that is easier to pick for them than other domains. Its also one that people will notice either out of excitement (CEO, VC's, Management, etc) or out of fear (tech workers, academics, other intellectual workers).