It's a good point, and I keep hearing it often, but it has one flaw.

It assumes that most engineers are in contact with the end customer, while in reality they are not. Most engineers are going through a PM whose role is to do what you described: speak with customers, understand what they want and somehow translate it to a language that the engineers will understand and in turn translate it into code. (Edit), the other part are "IC" roles like tech-lead/staff/etc, but the ratio between ICs and Engineers is, my estimate, around 1:10/20. So the majority of engineers are purely writing code, and engage in supporting actions around code (tech documentation, code reviews, pair programming, etc).

Now, my questions is as follows -- who has a bigger rate of employability in post LLM-superiority world: (1) a good technical software engineer with poor people/communication skills or (2) a good communicator (such as a PM) with poor software engineering skills?

I bet on 2, and as one of the comments says, if I had to future proof my career, I would move as fast as possible to a position that requires me to speak with people, be it other people in the org or customers.

(1) is exactly the misunderstanding i'm talking about, most creative jobs are not defined by their output (which is cheap) but by the way they reach that output. Software engineers that thought they could write their special characters in their dark room without the need to actually understand anything will go away in breeze (for good).

This entire field was full of hackers, deeply passionate and curious individuals who want to understand every little detail of the problem they were solving and why, then software becomes professionalized and a lot of amateurs looking for a quick buck came in commoditizing the industry. With LLM will go full-circe and push out a lot of amateurs to give again space to the hackers.

Code was never the goal, solving problem was.

this is the correct answer

i can only assume software developers afraid of LLMs taking their jobs have not been doing this for long. being a software developer is about writing code in the same way that being a CEO is about sending emails. and i haven't seen any CEOs get replaced even thought chatgpt can write better emails than most of them

But the problem is that the majority of SWs are like that. You can blame them, or the industry, bust most engineers are writing code most of the time. For every Tech Lead who does "people stuff", there are 5-20 engineers who, mostly, write code and barely know that entire scope/context of the product they are working on.

> bust most engineers are writing code most of the time.

the physical act of writing code is different than the process of developing software. 80%+ of the time working on a feature is designing, reading existing code, thinking about the best way to implement your feature in the existing codebase, etc. not to mention debugging, resolving oncall issues, and other software-related tasks which are not writing code

GPT is awesome at spitting out unit tests, writing one-off standalone helper functions, and scaffolding brand new projects, but this is realistically 1-2% of a software developer's time

Everything you have described, apart from on-call, I think LLMs can/will be able to do. Explaining code, reviewing code, writing code, writing test, writing tech docs. I think we are approaching a point where all these will be done by LLMs.

You could argue about architecture/thinking about the correct/proper implementations, but I'd argue that for the past 7 decades of software engineering, we are not getting close to a perfect architecture singularity where code is maintainable and there is no more tech debt left. Therefor, arguments such as "but LLMs produce spaghetti code" can be easily thrown away by saying that humans do as well, except humans waste time by thinking about ways to avoid spaghetti code, but eventually end up writing it anyways.

> Explaining code, reviewing code, writing code, writing test, writing tech docs.

people using GPT to write tech docs at real software companies get fired, full stop lol. good companies understand the value of concise & precise communication and slinging GPT-generated design docs at people is massively disrespectful to people's time, the same way that GPT-generated HN comments get downvoted to oblivion. if you're at a company where GPT-generated communication is the norm you're working for/with morons

as for everything else, no. GPT can explain a few thousand lines of code, sure, but it can't explain how every component in a 25-year-old legacy system with millions of lines and dozens/scores of services works together. "more context" doesn't help here

> A good software engineer is not going to be replaced by Cursor/Co-pilot, because the essence of programming is to translate the business requirements of a real world problem that other humans are facing into an ergonomic tool that can be used to solve such problem at scale, not writing characters on an IDE.

Managers and executives only see engineers and customer service as an additional cost and will find an opportunity to trim down roles and they do not care.

This year's excuse is now anything that uses AI, GPTs or Agents and they will try to do it anyway. Companies such as Devin and Klarna are not hiding this fact.

There will just be less engineers and customer service roles in 2025.

From a financial point of view, engineers are considered assets not costs, because they contribute to grow the valuation of the company assets.

The right thing to do economically (in capitalism) is to do more of the same, but faster. So if you as a software engineer or customer service rep can't do more of the same faster you will replaced by someone (or something) that alleggedly can.

> From a financial point of view, engineers are considered assets not costs

At Google? Perhaps. At most companies? No. At most places, software engineering is a pure cost center. The software itself may be an asset, but the engineers who are churning it out are not. That's part of the reason that it's almost always better to buy than build -- externalizing shared costs.

Just for an extreme example, I worked at a place that made us break down our time on new code vs. maintenance of existing code, because a big chunk of our time was accounted for literally as a cost, and could not be depreciated.

Some will. Some won't. The ones that cut engineering will be hurting by 2027, though, maybe 2026.

It's almost darwinian. The companies whose managers are less fit for running an organization that produces what matters will be less likely to survive.

So what you're saying is that some of us should be gearing up to pull in ludicrous amounts of consultant money in 2026, when the chickens come home to roost, and the managers foolish enough to farm out software development to LLMs need to hire actual humans at rate to exorcize their demon-haunted computers?

Yeah that will be a lucrative niche if you have the stomach for it...

Only dodgy dinosaur companies with shitty ancient crusty management see engineers as cost centers. Any actual modern tech company sees engineers as the engine that drives the entire business. This has been true for decades.

> A good designers is not going to be replaced by Dall-e/Midjourney, becuase the essence of design is to understand the true meaning/purpose of something and be able to express it graphically, not align pixels with the correct HEX colour combination one next to the other.

Yes, but Dall-e, etc. output will be good enough for most people and small companies if it's cheap or free even.

Big companies with deep pockets will still employ talented designers, because they can afford it and for prestige, but in general many average designer jobs are going to disappear and get replaced with AI output instead, because it's good enough for the less demanding customers.