groceryheist

3 mesi fadiscuss

Claude Code is rare product that is both beneficial and economically addictive, where its use increases demand for itself, at least in the supply / demand range for code we are accustomed to. It makes making software so much easier that Claude coding custom software becomes a solution to all sorts of past annoyances. Maintaining the software is easy enough thanks to Claude code.

groceryheist

5 mesi fadiscuss

This is correct. AI is a huge boon for open source, bespoke code, and end-user programming. It's death for business models that depend on proprietary code and products bloated with features only 5% of users use.

groceryheist

7 mesi fadiscuss

I'm thinking a lot about this currently as a recent convert (as of Opus 4.5). I think this post is on the right track, but like much of this discourse, it isn't really addressing how the technology will grow and the disciplines will adapt.

I'm by no means a doomer, but its obviously a huge change.

Generative coding models will never be 100% perfect. The speed of their convergence to acceptable solutions will decline in complex and novel systems, and at some point there will be diminishing returns to increasing investment in improving their performance.

The cost of software will fall precipitously and it seems unlikely that the increase in the value of programmers / engineers as they currently practice will offset the decline in the price in software. However, following the law of supply and demand, the supply and the amount of software produced will surely grow, and I think someone has to use the models to build software. I expect being trained in software engineering will be very helpful for making effective use of these tools, but such training may not sufficient for a person to succeed in the new labor market.

The scope of problem that a valuable engineer is expected to manage will grow enormously, requiring not only new skills in using generative coding/language models, but also in reasoning about the systems they help create. I anticipate growth in crossover PM / engineering roles. I guess that people who generalize across the stack and current sub-disciplines will thrive and valuable specialties and side-disciplines will include software architecture, electrical engineering, robotics, communication, and business management.

Some people will thrive in this new field, but it may be a difficult transition for many. I suspect that confusion about model capabilities and how to make the most of them and which people are doing valuable things will put a lot of friction and inefficiency into the transition time-frame.

Last thought, given how great models are at coding compared to general of knowledge, administrative, and bureaucratic work, I expect models are widely used to build systems that are supply shocks on such work. I don't think my argument above applies to such workers. I'm worried most about them.

groceryheist

7 mesi fadiscuss

2015

groceryheist

10 mesi fadiscuss

I dunno, I'm not a policymaker. What drawbacks do you see?

groceryheist

10 mesi fadiscuss

Only if visas can only be paid through earned income or returns on investments made with such. Otherwise you're mixing people who bring value by contributing labor with people who contribute capital. Both can be nice, but should we treat them the same or independently?

groceryheist

10 mesi fadiscuss

You can still require people to sustain employment in their field. Maybe companies can attest that a particular role classification requires a type of high-end talent. Auditing or otherwise verifying the attestation addresses the current allegations that H1-Bs are given for some jobs not requiring high-end talent.

groceryheist

10 mesi fadiscuss

The huge fee won't solve the cheap labor problem, only shift the equilibrium. The USA Tech job market faces increasing competition from Canada and Eastern and Southern European countries with lower wages but competitive talent better than available from generalist outsourcing. The new policy accelerates this trend as companies will seek to transplant workers from the USA into other countries. This is bad for American workers whose status as the geographic center of the organization declines.

In my view, the real problem with the H1-B program stems from the sponsorship system which ties each employee to a particular company and role. Unable to leave their position without threatening their residency, they are more willing to demand abuse (e.g., long working hours, poor leadership, subpar compensation) than the labor market requires.

An improvement to the program would make it easier for people to change job. Perhaps the government could permit highly skilled individuals to qualify personally for the visa so long as they sustain employment in their field.

groceryheist

10 mesi fadiscuss

Haha! I (with some assistance from stockfish) beat it on the first try.

comments