zlacker

[parent] [thread] 3 comments
1. dml213+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-05-06 20:25:59
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.
replies(1): >>Turing+M1
2. Turing+M1[view] [source] 2025-05-06 20:38:14
>>dml213+(OP)
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.

replies(1): >>warkda+tf
◧◩
3. warkda+tf[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-05-06 22:24:09
>>Turing+M1
> 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?

replies(1): >>Boreal+aC
◧◩◪
4. Boreal+aC[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-05-07 02:25:19
>>warkda+tf
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.

[go to top]