zlacker

I think they are pointing out that the advantage humans have has been chipped away little by little and computers winning at coding is inevitable on some timeline. They are also suggesting that perhaps the GP is being defensive.

>>Turing+(OP)
Why is it inevitable? Progress towards a goal in the past does not guarantee progress towards that goal in the future. There are plenty of examples of technology moving forward, and then hitting a wall.

>>dml213+H3
I agree with you it isnt guaranteed to be inevitable, and also agree there have been plenty of journeys which were on a trajectory only to fall off.

That said, IMHO it is inevitable. My personal (dismal) view is that businesses see engineering as a huge cost center to be broken up and it will play out just like manufacturing -- decimated without regard to the human cost. The profit motive and cost savings are just too great to not try. It is a very specific line item so cost/savings attribution is visible and already tracked. Finally, a good % of the industry has been staffed up with under-trained workers (e.g., express bootcamp) who arent working on abstraction, etc -- they are doing basic CRUD work.

>>Turing+t5
> businesses see engineering as a huge cost center to be [...] decimated without regard to the human cost

Most cost centers in the past were decimated in order to make progress: from horse-drawn carriages to cars and trucks, from mining pickaxes to mining machines, from laundry at the river to clothes washing machines, etc. Is engineering a particularly unique endeavor that needs to be saved from automation?

>>warkda+aj
There's what people think engineers do: building things.

Then there's what engineers actually do: deciding how things should be built.

Neither "needs to be saved from automation", but automating the latter is much harder than automating the former. The two are often conflated.