No, because as Jan Schaumann said "Starting to think the real risk is not AI replacing junior staff, but senior staff quitting because they just can’t take this AI bullshit any longer and just opt for early retirement."
This make sense to me. I didn't become a programmer for the $$$. I did it because I liked programming. If I no longer like what "programming" would become, I would no longer prefer to stay as a programmer by profession. I programmed before I ever became a professional, and I ll continue to do so even after that.
So If I stay in a programmer job, it would be because I don't have a choice financially. But if someone is already set for early retirement, I think it is an easy choice.
But I also think that there are a lot of people who are good at it even if they became programmers for the $$$...So I don't think there is a danger..
In my case, I am choosing to risk much smaller salaries, job anxiety and the pain of starting a new career from scratch rather than continue in software engineering. 20 years of professional experience, the few savings I have will go to buy a house in a lower-cost-of-living area in preparation of this huge life change (1+ years in the making)
Looking to get into solar/electrical engineering of some sort. The bonus is that I might return to enjoy coding for fun, without people reminding me every day that agentic is the future and I am being left behind. That and the state of hiring in this sector which is a hell of its own.
I think if this eventually happens, it would be a golden opportunity to hire the best talent at vastly reduces cost simply by giving such programmers a choice w.r.t LLM use.
Yes a company is going to put themselves at a disadvantage by moving slower than the rest of the industry or even being okay with an individual developer moving slower?
It is kinder than the alternative, which is to just keep raising expectations and letting people get walloped out of the blue.
Lots of companies otherwise basically let employees miss the train and then lay them off for it and then they are stuck searching for a job with no modern skills.
To me this is the warning. AI may or may not pan out, but if it does, you don’t get to say you were blindsided.
I think mandates are irrelevant. Unless you work at a monopoly or cutting edge domain, I don’t see how anything other than a “software factory” wins.
https://openai.com/index/harness-engineering/
I think Goodhart's law applies here.
“When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.”
Linus Torvalds said "AI is a tool"
I derive this analogy where AI is like code editor with advanced auto suggestions feature.
How far you are pushed to use by your organisation is going to break every seniors patience.
AI hype is trying blurring between blue collar and white collar people. In reality the line will exists and it will broaden.
No, because as Jan Schaumann said "Starting to think the real risk is not AI replacing junior staff, but senior staff quitting because they just can’t take this AI bullshit any longer and just opt for early retirement."
https://mstdn.social/@jschauma/116251321191395352
This make sense to me. I didn't become a programmer for the $$$. I did it because I liked programming. If I no longer like what "programming" would become, I would no longer prefer to stay as a programmer by profession. I programmed before I ever became a professional, and I ll continue to do so even after that.
So If I stay in a programmer job, it would be because I don't have a choice financially. But if someone is already set for early retirement, I think it is an easy choice.
But I also think that there are a lot of people who are good at it even if they became programmers for the $$$...So I don't think there is a danger..
And what is senior staff going to do if they quit? As if your standard enterprise dev (where most developers work) made enough to retire early.
In my case, I am choosing to risk much smaller salaries, job anxiety and the pain of starting a new career from scratch rather than continue in software engineering. 20 years of professional experience, the few savings I have will go to buy a house in a lower-cost-of-living area in preparation of this huge life change (1+ years in the making)
Looking to get into solar/electrical engineering of some sort. The bonus is that I might return to enjoy coding for fun, without people reminding me every day that agentic is the future and I am being left behind. That and the state of hiring in this sector which is a hell of its own.
I think if this eventually happens, it would be a golden opportunity to hire the best talent at vastly reduces cost simply by giving such programmers a choice w.r.t LLM use.
Yes a company is going to put themselves at a disadvantage by moving slower than the rest of the industry or even being okay with an individual developer moving slower?
>Yes a company is going to put themselves at a disadvantage
Not sure if you are talking about the current situtation, or some hypothetical case where there is human like AI.
I am talking about the current situation.
No. It's like mandating people use Notepad.exe. Why bother to specify the tools used?
I honestly don't think LLMs is just any tool.
It is kinder than the alternative, which is to just keep raising expectations and letting people get walloped out of the blue.
Lots of companies otherwise basically let employees miss the train and then lay them off for it and then they are stuck searching for a job with no modern skills.
To me this is the warning. AI may or may not pan out, but if it does, you don’t get to say you were blindsided.
> but if it does, you don’t get to say you were blindsided.
It's absolutely a commodification of the engineers skills. The shape of this is that if they could, they would cut you out entirely.
So it looks that you will be drawing the short end of the stick at one point or the other.
>no modern skills.
I don't think using LLMs is a skill.