Ask HN: Let's assume AI does take developer jobs. What's the pivot?
41 comments
Let’s assume that. Now, if a company can use AI to churn out code without developers, the question is then: who’s going to ask the AI what kind of code to write? Would that job be now taken by old software developers? Or would someone else (managers?) do that? Who’s gonna review the generated code as well?
If a company can now move faster because code gets deployed faster: what are companies gonna do with the gained time? Well, develop more features, right? And probably they will find out that now they need to deliver really complex features to beat their competitors. Perhaps we soon find that while AI can generate code just fine, they cannot yet perhaps generate truly complex systems? (i.e., AI cannot generate code that doesn’t resemble a bit their training material… so basically you don’t know what you don’t know).
I think if software developer jobs are taken over by AI, software developers will still be employable doing something related to software development. Perhaps not writing “raw code” anymore, but definitely using AI to meet customer needs. If any, AI will make companies in need of more developers (we’ll need to find another name for ourselves) I think. 50 years code, code wasn’t what companies needed, they wanted to solve business problems… but it turns out you need code for that. AI doesn’t change that, I think: we may not write code anymore and use AI to solve business needs, but we still need people to operate that AI.
AGI is a different thing, though. But then I don’t think we are close to that.
If a company can now move faster because code gets deployed faster: what are companies gonna do with the gained time? Well, develop more features, right? And probably they will find out that now they need to deliver really complex features to beat their competitors. Perhaps we soon find that while AI can generate code just fine, they cannot yet perhaps generate truly complex systems? (i.e., AI cannot generate code that doesn’t resemble a bit their training material… so basically you don’t know what you don’t know).
I think if software developer jobs are taken over by AI, software developers will still be employable doing something related to software development. Perhaps not writing “raw code” anymore, but definitely using AI to meet customer needs. If any, AI will make companies in need of more developers (we’ll need to find another name for ourselves) I think. 50 years code, code wasn’t what companies needed, they wanted to solve business problems… but it turns out you need code for that. AI doesn’t change that, I think: we may not write code anymore and use AI to solve business needs, but we still need people to operate that AI.
AGI is a different thing, though. But then I don’t think we are close to that.
It may sound a bit pedantic, but this is why I prefer the term "software engineer". I don't write code. I solve problems, typically by writing code. AI just shortens the gap between my intuition and solving the problems. Yes it will obviate the need for me to be in the loop in some cases, but in the same way that automation obviates the need for coal miners and other mundane, dangerous, or otherwise uninspiring jobs, AI will obviate the need for us to write boilerplate, setup the 100000th CRUD app of our careers, write the same login endpoint for the 50000th time, etc... In our lifetimes, I'm doubtful that AI will replace my creativity and ability to synthesize large amounts of multi-domain information into a reasonable solution for end-users. I'm not doubtful that will happen eventually, I just don't see it impacting my job prospects prior to my retirement.
In that sense it feels more like move from:
assembly -> C
C -> python
With some people still around to confirm the lower level parts are working as expected. I've already moved more to the describing the technical solution rather than implementing it. Hopefully this puts me in a good place.
assembly -> C
C -> python
With some people still around to confirm the lower level parts are working as expected. I've already moved more to the describing the technical solution rather than implementing it. Hopefully this puts me in a good place.
Hopefully
Sounds great
If my job becomes about telling a chatbot to write code and not actually doing any coding myself, I think I'll find a new career because that sounds hellish
Yeah already experiencing this. Things take the same time just that my ambitions on what to build in that time is much bigger. And if everyone is shipping such ambitious software then we all have to up our game
Yeah. It would mean we get to level up; we get to use better tools. AI is still a tool; use it to be able to take on bigger jobs.
Let's focus on the "what if" scenario.
If AI takes our current jobs, programming will still be our pivot.
But programming at a higher abstraction level. We'll use natural languages.
Computer Science knowledge will remain crucial. Maybe good literature will become a source of keywords and commands for us.
Why will programming still be our pivot? There is no perfect software. Every program has resource constraints and unique features. High-level constraints include choosing app submodules to please users. Low-level constraints also exist. Who can decide to cut off garbage collector for performance? Yes, the process in some aspects may become more declarative. But only you know your constraints and trade-offs. And you need to specify these constraints for a hypothetical perfect coding AI. The deeper you start to specify, the more you start programming. Maybe you'll even use "while" constructions in natural language programming.
If we imagine AI knowing all constraints and human needs, we enter sci-fi territory. I think we could collectively write a pretty decent sci-fi novel about this in the comments.
But in the end, the world is very complicated and this is only an opinion.
P.S. Right now I'm going to write code in a completely non-declarative style, and have fun doing it!
Why will programming still be our pivot? There is no perfect software. Every program has resource constraints and unique features. High-level constraints include choosing app submodules to please users. Low-level constraints also exist. Who can decide to cut off garbage collector for performance? Yes, the process in some aspects may become more declarative. But only you know your constraints and trade-offs. And you need to specify these constraints for a hypothetical perfect coding AI. The deeper you start to specify, the more you start programming. Maybe you'll even use "while" constructions in natural language programming.
If we imagine AI knowing all constraints and human needs, we enter sci-fi territory. I think we could collectively write a pretty decent sci-fi novel about this in the comments.
But in the end, the world is very complicated and this is only an opinion.
P.S. Right now I'm going to write code in a completely non-declarative style, and have fun doing it!
The value of a programmer isn't in churning out code. It's the ability to solve a real world problem, or whole class of similar problems. LLMs may eventually be able to climb up the value chain, but we're not there yet.
The code itself is an artifact of the process of theory building while solving problems using computers. As time goes on, and new wrinkles of the problem space are found, the programmer has to manage the process of revising and extending the theory to accommodate all new observations.
Knowing the keywords, APIs, and typing valid code are a hard set of skills to teach an LLM, it's taken billions of dollars of research to get close. It's still a hill to climb for the rest.
The code itself is an artifact of the process of theory building while solving problems using computers. As time goes on, and new wrinkles of the problem space are found, the programmer has to manage the process of revising and extending the theory to accommodate all new observations.
Knowing the keywords, APIs, and typing valid code are a hard set of skills to teach an LLM, it's taken billions of dollars of research to get close. It's still a hill to climb for the rest.
> The value of a programmer isn't in churning out code. It's the ability to solve a real world problem, or whole class of similar problems.
This is the difference between "computer programming" and "software engineering". Engineering is using it to solve real problems.
This is the difference between "computer programming" and "software engineering". Engineering is using it to solve real problems.
The current batch of AI is entirely based on LLMs, so it’s only as smart as what you feed it. Most fullstack developers are not writing original software. Instead they are building the same unoriginal shit on top of the same large frameworks as everyone else. The less original your output becomes the more replaceable you become. The LLMs are already writing better framework code with excellent documentation.
I absolutely detest these large frameworks and thus absolutely refuse to go back to fullstack development. I might, however, pivot back to fullstack development only after AI replaces all the unoriginal framework nonsense.
In the meantime I have already pivoted to proxy and API management. I also have a part time job as a senior technology principal in government with associate director experience, which can become a full time job if I want to relocate.
I absolutely detest these large frameworks and thus absolutely refuse to go back to fullstack development. I might, however, pivot back to fullstack development only after AI replaces all the unoriginal framework nonsense.
In the meantime I have already pivoted to proxy and API management. I also have a part time job as a senior technology principal in government with associate director experience, which can become a full time job if I want to relocate.
There is nothing to pivot to.
If we assume developer jobs are taken by AI, other jobs might have been taken already or they are not far away.
If AI progress continues and does not get misused, we end up with a utopia where we don't have to work. Otherwise, you have to be prepared for the doomer scenario. How you prepare is up to you.
There won't be any in between situation unless we hit a major roadblock somewhere - an unsolvable problem?
Doomer Situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35364833
This is a tech enthusiast community so I don't expect people taking a doomer stance unless it hits them personally. A messup could be devastating in the future.
If AI progress continues and does not get misused, we end up with a utopia where we don't have to work. Otherwise, you have to be prepared for the doomer scenario. How you prepare is up to you.
There won't be any in between situation unless we hit a major roadblock somewhere - an unsolvable problem?
Doomer Situation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35364833
This is a tech enthusiast community so I don't expect people taking a doomer stance unless it hits them personally. A messup could be devastating in the future.
There's no pivot.
Let's put working on a different level of abstraction aside (like reviewing outputs and guiding AI) - it's already happening to some extent and developer jobs are always changing with or without AI.
If AI gets good enough to largely remove the need for software development jobs, I don't think there's a pivot, at least not at scale.
1. If AI gets good enough at SWE, it will very likely also be extremely good at any kind of knowledge work, so you can't go and be an accountant or a lawyer because they are losing their jobs at scale too.
2. An individual can go and be a plumber or an electrician but it can't be done at scale. If 40% of workers are doing knowledge work, they can't all switch to manual labor, there isn't enough demand in those fields to absorb 40% of people. (This is even if we ignore other problems like the fact that not everyone has the aptitude or ability to retrain)
3. Even if you individually are okay because you're still employed, or because you're independently wealthy, you still have a huge problem - at 30%+ levels of unemployment the economy and society as a whole begin to collapse. If you have a job, there wouldn't be enough people to pay for your services; if you have assets (stocks, property, currency) their value won't be preserved in an unstable society with high unemployment. It wouldn't be just a problem for the people who are directly affected, it would be everyone's problem.
Let's put working on a different level of abstraction aside (like reviewing outputs and guiding AI) - it's already happening to some extent and developer jobs are always changing with or without AI.
If AI gets good enough to largely remove the need for software development jobs, I don't think there's a pivot, at least not at scale.
1. If AI gets good enough at SWE, it will very likely also be extremely good at any kind of knowledge work, so you can't go and be an accountant or a lawyer because they are losing their jobs at scale too.
2. An individual can go and be a plumber or an electrician but it can't be done at scale. If 40% of workers are doing knowledge work, they can't all switch to manual labor, there isn't enough demand in those fields to absorb 40% of people. (This is even if we ignore other problems like the fact that not everyone has the aptitude or ability to retrain)
3. Even if you individually are okay because you're still employed, or because you're independently wealthy, you still have a huge problem - at 30%+ levels of unemployment the economy and society as a whole begin to collapse. If you have a job, there wouldn't be enough people to pay for your services; if you have assets (stocks, property, currency) their value won't be preserved in an unstable society with high unemployment. It wouldn't be just a problem for the people who are directly affected, it would be everyone's problem.
30% unemployment is bad, but 100%, or even 90% should be great - the age of abundance, where robots are doing all the work, and everything is so cheap that anyone can have the basic necessities for free.
An AI that writes complex accurate code will not be based on LLMs. That’s because you cannot possibly write precise and complete instructions using human prose, regardless of whether you might call yourself a “prompt engineer”.
Such an AI would take in symbols as its specifications.
To me that leaves an opening for a software architect that can put these symbols together quickly and efficiently.
A core skill of such a person would be deep technical domain knowledge. Other things like negotiation, persuasion, communication, management are also core skills worth developing.
Of course, many peripheral jobs would still be needed like cybersecurity, databases, networking, hardware etc.
This kind of AI technology is coming soon. The good news is that most software people are really good at adapting to learning new things.
To me that leaves an opening for a software architect that can put these symbols together quickly and efficiently.
A core skill of such a person would be deep technical domain knowledge. Other things like negotiation, persuasion, communication, management are also core skills worth developing.
Of course, many peripheral jobs would still be needed like cybersecurity, databases, networking, hardware etc.
This kind of AI technology is coming soon. The good news is that most software people are really good at adapting to learning new things.
It is of my opinion that the bottom 70-80% of dev jobs will likely go away, because AI will be able to do those jobs with relative ease. However, there will always have to be people that understand the vast complexity that makes up everything from the microcontroller to the internet.
That being said, in this scenario I think there will be lots of work that may look something maybe a bit more like SRE/devops does today, that is probably involving a lot of security/monitoring and code review/iteration on patches.
That being said, in this scenario I think there will be lots of work that may look something maybe a bit more like SRE/devops does today, that is probably involving a lot of security/monitoring and code review/iteration on patches.
Integration, QA (don’t call it a comeback), and product vision and ownership.
A role like “tech lead” today is often about negotiating with other stakeholders, writing and vetting a design, and chunking it up for junior devs. That work stays relevant even if the junior devs are replaced with AI.
A role like “tech lead” today is often about negotiating with other stakeholders, writing and vetting a design, and chunking it up for junior devs. That work stays relevant even if the junior devs are replaced with AI.
If you’ve not yet explored how to work with AI to strengthen your own work day I’d start there. That will tell you where to can leverage it and where it will need your keen eye to get what you need out of it
I'd just do sales or product. The AIs are building something. That something is being bought. Maybe AI will do that too. But at some point, we'd still be a human-machine interface, even if it's interviewing customers.
Assuming AI automates all that too, my degree was in EE and someone has to do the low level programming and wiring. If AI takes that, I'll just get a job connecting the AI brains to the nuclear fusion plants.
Or I'll just become a chess player. No matter how good AI plays chess, people still pay to watch humans play chess on YouTube.
Assuming AI automates all that too, my degree was in EE and someone has to do the low level programming and wiring. If AI takes that, I'll just get a job connecting the AI brains to the nuclear fusion plants.
Or I'll just become a chess player. No matter how good AI plays chess, people still pay to watch humans play chess on YouTube.
[deleted]
If you ask this question - you fundamentally don’t understand the essence of engineering.
Software developers are a variant of engineers.
Coding or ai or whatever is just a tool at hand, one of many possible to reach a goal.
If any algorithm can take over the “engineering” core - good question. But we’re not even close to understand that question fully, let alone asking and answering it.
Software developers are a variant of engineers.
Coding or ai or whatever is just a tool at hand, one of many possible to reach a goal.
If any algorithm can take over the “engineering” core - good question. But we’re not even close to understand that question fully, let alone asking and answering it.
> If any algorithm can take over the “engineering”
Well it's already happened. Mindless, lifeless carbon orbiting around a star iteratively configured itself into a machine capable of creative thought. Our human brains. Unless there is some unknown missing ingredient (divine intervention, souls, etc) it may be possible to create new intelligence.
> If you ask this question - you fundamentally don’t understand the essence of engineering.
Current LLM's, sure just a tool. They may not be "real" intelligence by some measure of "real".
But the premise of the question is "what if" we do achieve the real thing and it can take over any thought process a human is capable of. With means to observe surroundings and think outside the box, just like we do.
Well it's already happened. Mindless, lifeless carbon orbiting around a star iteratively configured itself into a machine capable of creative thought. Our human brains. Unless there is some unknown missing ingredient (divine intervention, souls, etc) it may be possible to create new intelligence.
> If you ask this question - you fundamentally don’t understand the essence of engineering.
Current LLM's, sure just a tool. They may not be "real" intelligence by some measure of "real".
But the premise of the question is "what if" we do achieve the real thing and it can take over any thought process a human is capable of. With means to observe surroundings and think outside the box, just like we do.
> it may be possible to create new intelligence
Define “intelligence” with good enough precision and details to compare it against some complex algorithm (linux core etc).
Until then your statements bear no real meaning to argue about.
Define “intelligence” with good enough precision and details to compare it against some complex algorithm (linux core etc).
Until then your statements bear no real meaning to argue about.
I mean the point is missed in your response. You're talking about the current state of LLMs, but the premise of the question is a "what if" scenario where AI successfully takes over our jobs.
There's no need to define intelligence to point out the misinterpretation of OP's question.
There's no need to define intelligence to point out the misinterpretation of OP's question.
My point is that the question is not even clear. “What if” what exactly?
> Mindless, lifeless carbon orbiting around a star iteratively configured itself into a machine capable of creative thought
Just a hypothesis, unproven still, never reproduced in the lab even in its most primitive form.
Just a hypothesis, unproven still, never reproduced in the lab even in its most primitive form.
AI will be able to code faster and more accurately than we do. It won’t come from LLMs though; for one thing, their free-form human inputs will never be precise enough. Instead, it will come from a different kind of AI.
Jobs that will be untouched are those that surround it - software architects, database experts, cyber, people who are good at figuring out requirements etc.
So I have put 0 taught in this. But here's the idea: human computers were replaced by the computer. What did they do instead? They programmed them.
By that analogy, software developers will use AI to solve technical problems.
By that analogy, software developers will use AI to solve technical problems.
Take the other side of the bet and start selling software. You'd be so glad if AI were good enough to write the software you need (and so disappointed at the state of AI-driven development right now!)
Until I can upload my repo to openai and have it build my features, I'm not worried.
Coding one file at a time with AI is pretty decent for short small tasks but it doesn't scale.
Coding one file at a time with AI is pretty decent for short small tasks but it doesn't scale.
Yeah I agree with dakiol. I think a fair alternative viewpoint I also considered is:
Everything high skill is becoming low skill. Low skill jobs at equilibrium pay low, keep you busy with mundane work, and consequently fucking suck to most people. Uber is amazing but being an Uber driver is not imo. Taking out any related talks on self-driving rn, if AI evolved the way ridesharing did up to now, I almost can't help but entertain the perspective that we'd become the operators of these complex systems and have to deal with consumer blame, lack of management trust, etc. the way I've heard most ridesharing drivers deal with.
That being said, I don't think AI will become "smarter" than humans in knowing what we don't know which is especially important when it comes to execution of ideas, so there is always gonna be "high-skilled" labor that can't be easily automated when it comes to being creative and innovating.
As someone working in FAANG seeing how incredibly low-labor the SWE work is though, it's hard not to see this still as a golden era that will be looked back on in decades.
That being said, I don't think AI will become "smarter" than humans in knowing what we don't know which is especially important when it comes to execution of ideas, so there is always gonna be "high-skilled" labor that can't be easily automated when it comes to being creative and innovating.
As someone working in FAANG seeing how incredibly low-labor the SWE work is though, it's hard not to see this still as a golden era that will be looked back on in decades.
I'll create a YouTube channel about how to make money after AI does take developers jobs
Ai code is best practice if your prompt is best practice.
QA for AI
Any ideas what that might look like? What expertise would be needed besides a person manually checking the inputs and expected outputs?
> What expertise would be needed besides a person manually checking the inputs and expected outputs?
- Set standards to follow
- Setup linters, formatters, etc
- If inputs will still come from humans then how to test and ensure edge cases around those are fine (often missed by AI)
- Impacts on cost, performance, memory usage and other requirements
- Be able to manually intervene and correct code if needed. Any automation will likely have places it gets stuck in
- Provide feedback so it improves
Consider how there were farms and farmers. Manual farmers back in the days were a lot different to the farmers of today using machinery. Same with factories. It's not going to be a 101% automated.
- Set standards to follow
- Setup linters, formatters, etc
- If inputs will still come from humans then how to test and ensure edge cases around those are fine (often missed by AI)
- Impacts on cost, performance, memory usage and other requirements
- Be able to manually intervene and correct code if needed. Any automation will likely have places it gets stuck in
- Provide feedback so it improves
Consider how there were farms and farmers. Manual farmers back in the days were a lot different to the farmers of today using machinery. Same with factories. It's not going to be a 101% automated.
And QC
So instead of speculating on whether or not the jobs disappear, I'd like to open a discussion on what the next step would be assuming they do disappear. This can either be personal or what you think is the most logical transition. Additionally, we're assuming worst case scenario here: you're not getting another standard software position (you may interpret this as you wish).