The Post-Developer Era

The reality is AI will change how software is built, but it's still just a tool that requires the same type of precise thinking that software developers do. You can remove all need to understand syntax, but the need for translating vague desires from laypeople into a precise specification will remain—there's nothing on the AI horizon that will solve for this, and savvy tech leaders know this. So why are we hearing this narrative from tech leaders who should know better? Two reasons:

First is that the majority of investor gains in the US stock market have been fueled heavily by AI hype. Every public tech CEO is getting questions from analysts about what their AI strategy, and they have to tell a compelling story. There's very little space or patience for nuance here because no one really knows how it will play out, but in the meantime investors are making decisions based on what is said. It's no surprise that the majority of execs are just jumping on the bandwagon so they have a story to keep their stock price propped up.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, regardless of AI, software teams across the industry are just too big. Headcount for tech companies has ballooned over the last couple decades due to the web, smart phone revolution and ZIRP. With this type of environment the FAANGs of the world were hoarding talent just to be ready to capitalize on whatever is next. But the ugly truth is that a lot of the juice has already been squeezed, and the actual business needs don't justify that headcount over the long-term. AI is convenient cover story for RIFs that they would have done anyway, this just ties it with a nice bow for investors.

At several times I was like « why did you do that this way? This is so contrived ». And I should have known better but of course the answer started with « … I know but Copilot did this or that… ». Of course no test to validate properly the implementation.

The sentiment expressed in the article were developers won’t even bother to validate the output of coding assistants is real. And that’s one of the biggest shame to this current hype: quality was already decreasing for the past 10 years, signs indicate this will only go downhill from here

That said, I do think he understates how much the value of certain developer skills is shifting. For example, pixel-perfect CSS or esoteric algorithmic showmanship used to signal craftsmanship — now they’re rapidly becoming commoditized. With today’s tools, I’d rather paste a screenshot into an LLM and tweak the output than spend hours on handcrafted layouts for a single corporate device.

Why are LLMs in these context being viewed as more than really powerful auto-complete/intellisense? I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't LLMs still years away from auto-generating a complete complex codebase that works without fixing a lot of bugs/assumptions?

That said, at least we have reached the phase where AI tools are commercialized, so that's another +1 I guess.

In the near future we'll probably see a lot more subject matter experts creating their own tools instead of requiring a dedicated person to translate their requirements.

1. Millions of layoffs across industries due to AI with some form of questionable UBI (not sure if this works)

2. 100BN in profits. (Microsoft / OpenAI definition)

3. Abundance in slopware. (VC's definition)

4. Raise more money to reach AGI / ASI.

5. Any job that a human can do which is economically significant.

6. Safe AI (Researchers definition).

7. All the above that AI could possibly do better.

I am sure there must be a industry aligned and concrete definition that everyone can agree on rather the goal post moving definitions.

Please do not anthropomorphize the AI, it's not a he.

Surely the level of intellectual difficulty in software engineering is similar to practicing law, medicine, banking… ?

Know if it actually is your tool.

AI is at best very helpful.

It’s a very very long way from making programmers obsolete.

Sadly most shops greatly overlook this reality, stuck in 1991, and continue to add redundant layers and staff thinking it makes them 'agile'.

In fact, this was totally and easily explicable after the dominant political party tried to convince Americans that their current leader was not suffering from severe cognitive decline and was "sharp as a tack" (a Biden admin talking point) and that NPCs lying to Americans about Trump being "easy to beat" by Kamala and also lying to them about Trump calling Charlottesville protestors "very fine people" and thinking that those fake attempts to make Trump look like he was endorsing Nazis wouldn't backfire explosively.

So, no, it was not "inexplicable" at all but it was rather Whiplash Effect initiated by media narratives originating in the Democrat ecosystem. And don't forget: Trump, Elon and Rogan are all ex-Democrats. I wonder, too, if the author was one of those people who deluded himself into thinking "Kamala is a great candidate" against all the evidence.

So the "Russiagate" hoax failed, "Kamala is awesome" failed, elites orienting themselves around appeasing far left pressure groups failed, smug contempt for middle America failed (astonishingly) and yet it is "inexplicable" why Orange Man Bad won the election!

+100 to that