zlacker

>>gregor+(OP)
This is exactly the direction I expect AI-assisted coding to go in. Not software engineers being kicked out and some business person pressing a few buttons to have a fully functional app (as is playing out in a lot of fantasies on LinkedIn & X), but rather experienced engineers using AI to generate bits of code and then meticulously reviewing and testing them.

The million dollar (perhaps literally) question is – could @kentonv have written this library quicker by himself without any AI help?

>>paxys+A6
> Not software engineers being kicked out ... but rather experienced engineers using AI to generate bits of code and then meticulously reviewing and testing them.

But what if you only need 2 kentonv's instead of 20 at the end? Do you assume we'll find enough new tasks that will occupy the other 18? I think that's the question.

And the author is implementing a fairly technical project in this case. How about routine LoB app development?

>>gokhan+na
Increased productivity means increased opportuntity. There isn't going to be a time (at least not anytime soon) when we can all sit back and say "yup, we have accomplished everything there is to do with software and don't need more engineers".

>>paxys+5b
But there very well might be a time very soon where human's no longer offer economic value to the software engineering process. If you could (and currently you can't) pay an AI $10k/year to do what a human could do in a year, why would you pay the human 6 figures? Or even $20k?

Nobody is claiming that human's won't have jobs simply because "we have accomplished everything this is to do". It's that humans will offer zero economic value compared to AI because AI gets so good and so cheap.

>>spider+4c
And there might be a giant asteroid that strikes the earth a few years down the line ending human civilization.

If there is some magic $10k AI that can fully replace a $200k software engineer then I'd love to see it. Until that happens this entire discussion is science fiction.

>>paxys+Dc
It's not. Consider that replacing the only $200k software engineer on the project is different than replacing the third or tenth $200k software engineer on the project. To the extent AI is improving productivity of those engineers, it reduces the need for adding more engineers to that team. That may mean firing some of them, or just not hiring new ones (or fewer of them) as the project expands, as existing ones + AI can keep up with increased workload.

>>TeMPOr+gg
I'm biased but my money's on the end result of AI being fewer engineers per team but also teams as a concept becoming obsolete.

Why keep legacy structures, with luxuries like POs or PMs if AI becomes powerful as you say - it'll just be 'one man startups' for better or worse.

Any empire-building VP should probably fear the wishful AI future they're praying for!

>>nand_g+PY
> it'll just be 'one man startups' for better or worse.

Not necessarily. The reality is, whatever some people can do individually, if they team up, they can do more together. The teams and small startups will remain for now, and so will big companies.

I do imagine however that the internal structure will change. As the AI gets better and able to do more independently, people will shift from pair programming to more of a PM role (this is happening now), and this I imagine will quickly collapse further.

Even today, LLMs seem more suited for project management than doing actual coding - it's just the space in-between that's the problem. I.e. LLMs can code great in the small, and can break down work very well, but keeping the changes consistent and following the plan is where they still struggle. As that gap closes, I'm not really sure how the team composition would look like. But I don't doubt there'd still be teams.