In the past, a junior would write bad code and you'd work with them to make it better. Now I just assume they're taking my feedback and feeding it right back to the LLM. Ends up taking more of my time than if I'd done it myself. The whole mentorship thing breaks down when you're basically collaborating with a model through a proxy.
I think highly motivated juniors who actually want to learn are still valuable. But it's hard to get past "why bother mentoring when I could just use AI directly?"
I don't have answers here. Just thinking maybe we're not seeing the end of software engineering for those of us already in it—but the door might be closing for anyone trying to come up behind us.
This is especially annoying when you get back a response in a PR "Yes, you're right. I have pushed the fixes you suggested."
Part of the challenge (and I don't have an answer either) is there are some juniors who use AI to assist... and some who use it to delegate all of their work to.
It is especially frustrating that the second group doesn't become much more than a proxy for an LLM.
New juniors can progress in software engineering - but they have to take the road of disciplined use of AI and make sure that they're learning the material rather than delegating all their work to it... and that delegating work is very tempting... especially if that's what they did in college.
Hmmm. Is there any way to distinguish between these two categories? Because I agree, if someone is delegating all their work to an LLM or similar tool, cut out the middleman. Same as if someone just copy/pasted from Stackoverflow 5 years ago.
I think it is also important to think about incentives. What incentive does the newer developer have to understand the LLM output? There's the long term incentive, but is there a short term one?
Unfortunately, the use of LLMs has brought about a lot of mistrust in the workplace. Earlier you’d simply assume that a junior making mistakes is simply part of being a junior and can be coached; whereas nowadays said junior may not be willing to take your advice as they see it as sermonizing when an “easy” process to get “acceptable” results exists.
> Earlier you’d simply assume that a junior making mistakes is simply part of being a junior and can be coached; whereas nowadays said junior may not be willing to take your advice
On a positive note: I can remember mentoring some young people and watching them comb through blogs to learn about programming. I am so old that my shelf is/was full of O'Reilly books. By the time I was mentoring them, few people under 25 were reading O'Reilly books. It opened my eyes that how people changes more than what people learn. Example: Someone is trying to learning about access control modifiers for classes/methods in a programming language. Old days: Get the O'Reilly book for that programming language. Lookup access modifiers in the index. 10 year ago: Google for a blog with an intro to the programming language. There will be a tip about what access modifiers can do. Today: Ask ChatGPT. In my (somewhat contrived) example, the how is changing, but not the what.
The answer to this (throughout the ages) should be the same: read the authoritative source of information. The official API docs, the official language specification, the man page, the textbook, the published paper, and so on.
Maybe I am showing my age, but one of the more frustrating parts of being a senior mentoring a junior is when they come with a question or problem, and when I ask: “what does the official documentation say?” I get a blank stare. We have moved from consulting the primary source of information to using secondary sources (like O’Reilly, blogs and tutorials), now to tertiary sources like LLMs.
If I have a problem with a USB datastream, the last place I'm going to look is the official USB spec. I'll be buried for weeks. The information may be there, but it will take me so long to find it that it might as well not.
The first place to look is a high quality source that has digested the official spec and regurgitated it into something more comprehensible.
[shudder] the amount of life that I've wasted discussing the meaning of some random phrase in IEC-62304 is time I will never get back!
I think this is undoubtedly true from my observations. Recently, I got together over drinks with a group of young devs (most around half my age) from another country I was visiting.
One of the things I said, very casually, was, "Hey, don't sleep on good programming books. O'Reilly. Wiley. Addison-Wesley. MIT Press. No Starch Press. Stuff like that."
Well, you should've seen the looks on their faces. It was obvious that advice went over very poorly. "Ha, read books? That's hard. We'd rather just watch a YouTube video about how to make a JS dropdown menu."
So yeah, I get that "showing my age" remark. Used to be the discipline in this industry is that you shouldn't ask a question of a senior before you'd read the documentation. If you had read the documentation, man pages, googled, etc., and still couldn't come up with an answer, then you could legitimately ask for a senior mentor's time. Otherwise, the answer from the greybeards would have been "Get out of my face, kid. Go RTFM."
That system that used to exist is totally broken now. When reading and understanding technical documentation is viewed as "old school", then you know we have a big problem.
To this day, I normally search on Google first, then try an LLM... the last place that I look is the official docs if my question is about POSIX or Win32. They are just too complex and require too much base knowledge about the ecosystem. As an interesting aside, when I first learned Python, Java, and C#, I thought their docs were as approachable as Qt. It was very easy to get started with "console" programming and later expand to GUI programming.
The tangent to that is it is also changing with the how much one internalizes about the problem domain and is able to apply that knowledge later. Hard fought knowledge from the old days is something that shapes how I design systems today.
However, the tendency of people who reach for ChatGPT today to solve a problem results in them making the same mistakes again the next time since the information is so easy to access. It also results in things that are larger are more difficult... the "how do you architect this larger system" is something you learn by building the smaller systems and learning about them so that their advantages and disadvantages and how and such becomes an inherent part of how you conceive of the system as a whole. ... Being able to have ChatGPT do it means people often don't think about the larger problem or how it fits together.
I believe that is harder for a junior who is using ChatGPT to advance to being a mid level or senior developer than it is for a junior from the old days because of the lack of retention of the knowledge of the problems and solutions.
I have a friend who is a dev, a very senior one at that, who spins up 4 Claudes at once and does the whole enterprises work. Hes a "Senior AI Director" with nobody beneath him, not a single direct report, and NO knowledge of AI or ML, to my chagrin.
So now I'm whining too...
Once you’re a senior you can exercise judgement on when/how to use LLMs.
When you’re a junior you haven’t developed that judgement yet. That judgement comes from consulting documentation, actually writing code by hand, seeing how you can write a small program just fine, but noticing that some things need to change when the code gets a lot bigger.
A junior without judgement isn’t very valuable unless he/she is working hard to develop that judgement. Passing assignments through to the LLM does not build judgement, so it’s not a winning strategy.
Hot take: This reads like a person who was difficult to work with.
Senior people have responsibility, therefore in a business situation they have authority. Junior people who think they know it all don't like this. If there's a disagreement between a senior person and a junior person about something, they should, of course, listen to each other respectfully. If that's not happening, then one of them is not being a good employee. But if they are, then the supervisor makes the final call.
I saw a situation like this many years ago. The newly hired midlevel engineer thought he was smarter than the supervisor. Kept on arguing about code style, system design etc. He was fired after 6 months.
But I was friendly with him, so we kept in touch. He ended up working at MSFT for 3 times the salary.
For software, I can imagine a process where junior developers create a PR and then run through it with another engineer side by side. The short-term incentive would be that they can do it, else they'd get exposed.
Yes, it should be obvious. At least at the current state of LLMs.
> There's the long term incentive, but is there a short term one?
The short term incentive is keeping their job.
I don't mind if AI is used as a tool, but the output needs to be vetted.
That is at least for the people who don't understand what they're doing, the LLM tends to come out with something I can at least turn into something useful.
It might be reversed though for people who know what they're doing. IF they know what they're doing they might theoretically be able to put together some stackoverflow results that make sense, and build something up from that better than what gets generated from LLM (I am not asserting this would happen, and thinking it might be the case)
However I don't know as I've never known anyone who knew what they were doing who also just copy/pasted some stackoverflow or delegated to LLM significantly.
You might be specifically talking about people who copy/paste without understanding, but I think it's still OK-ish to do that, since you can't make an entire [whatever you're coding up] by copy/pasting snippets from SO like you're cutting words out of a magazine for a ransom note. There's still thought involved, so it's more like training wheels that you eventually outgrow as you get more understanding.
It at least forces you to tinker with whatever you copied over.
But I suppose my question is rhetorical. We're laying off hundreds of thousands of engineers and maming existing ones do the work of 3-4 engineers. Not much time to help the juniors.
I've learnt that saying this exact phrase does wonders when it comes to advancing your career. I used to argue against stupid ideas but not only did I achieve nothing, but I was also labelled uncooperative and technically incompetent. Then I became a "yes-man" and all problems went away.
I have seen responses to PRs that appear to be a copy and paste of my feedback into it and a copy and paste of the response and fixes into the PR.
It may be the that the developer is incorporating the mannerisms of Claude into their own speech... that would be something to delve into (that was intentional). However, more often than not in today's world of software development such responses are more likely to indicate a copy and paste of LLM generated content.
This is nothing new. People rarely have independent thoughts, usually they just parrot whatever they've been told to parrot. LLMs created common world-wide standard on this parroting, which makes the phenomenon more evident, but it doesn't change the fact that it existed before LLMs.
Have you ever had a conversation with an intelligent person and thought "wow that's refreshing"? Yeah. There's a reason why it feels so good.
If you're still asking trvia, yes. Maybe it's time to shift from the old filter and update the process?
If you can see in the job that a 30 minute PR is the problem, then maybe replace that 3rd leetcode round with 30 minutes of pair programming. Hard to chatGPT in real time without sounding suspicion.
But is the false negative for a nervous pair programmer worse than a false positive for a leetcode question? Ideally a good interviewer would be able to separate the anxiety from the actual thinking and see that this person can actually think, but that's another undervalued skill among industry.
Given how much these orgs pay, both direct to head hunters and indirect in interview time, might as well probationally hire the whoever passes the initial sniff test.
That also lets you evaluate longer term habits like punctuality, irritability, and overall not-being-a-jerkness.
Onboarding. Even with good employees, it can take a few months to get the flow of the organization, understanding the code base, and understanding the domain. Maybe a bit of technology shift too. Firing a person who doesn't appear to be preforming in the first week or two or three would be churning through that too fast.
Provisional hiring with "maybe we'll hire you after you move here and work for us for a month" is a non-starter for many candidates.
At my current job and the job previous it took two or three weeks to get things fully set up. Be it equipment, provisioning permissions, accounts, training (the retail company I worked at from '10 to '14 - they sent every new hire out to a retail store to learn about how the store runs (to get a better idea of how to build things for them and support their processes).
... and not every company pays Big Tech compensation. Sometimes it's "this is the only person who didn't say «I've got an offer with someone else that pays 50% more»". Sometimes a warm body that you can delegate QA testing and pager duty to (rather than software development tasks) is still a warm body.
Most (middle) management is an exercise in ass-covering, rather than creating healthy teams. They get easily scared when "Jira isn't green", and look someone else to blame for not doing the managing part correctly
"Bad" is vague, subjective moralist judgement. It's also easily manipulated and distorted to justify firing competent people who did no wrong.
> It’s pretty obvious when someone starts actually working if they’re going to a net positive. On the order of weeks, not months.
I feel your opinion is rather simplistic and ungrounded. Only the most egregious cases are rendered apparent in a few weeks worth of work. In software engineering positions, you don't have the chance to let your talents shine through in the span of a few weeks. The cases where incompetence is rendered obvious in the span of a few weeks actually spells gross failures in the whole hiring process, which failed to verify that the candidate failed to even meet the hiring bar.
> (...) might as well probationally hire the whoever passes the initial sniff test.
This is a colossal mistake, and one which disrupts a company's operations and the candidates' lives. Moreover, it has a chilling effect on the whole workforce because no one wants to work for a company ran by sociopaths that toy with people's lives and livelihood as if it was nothing.
If you have that kind of office politics going on, that's the issue to be solved.
>toy with people's lives and livelihood as if it was nothing.
If the employee lies about their skills, it is on them.
Real junior hiring used to mean taking someone raw, pairing them heavily for six months, and turning them into a solid mid. Now the default is “we’ll only hire someone who needs zero ramp-up” and then wonder why the market feels empty.
You’re asking these rhetorical questions as if we haven’t had centuries of precedent here, both bad and good. How does the AMA balance between neurosurgeons and optometrists? Bar associations between corporate litigators and family estate lawyers? Professional engineering associations between civil engineers and chemical engineers?
One takes the FE exam ( https://ncees.org/exams/fe-exam/ ). You will note at the bottom of the page "FE Chemical" and "FE Civil" which are two different exams.
Then you have an apprenticeship for four years as an Engineer in Training (EIT).
Following, that, you take the PE exam. https://ncees.org/exams/pe-exam/ You will note that the PE exams are even more specialized to the field.
Depending on the state you are licensed in (states tend to have reciprocal licensing - but not necessarily and not necessarily for all fields). For example, if you were licensed in Washington, you would need to pass another exam specific to California to work for a California firm.
Furthermore, there is the continuing education requirements (that are different for each state). https://www.pdhengineer.com/pe-continuing-education-requirem...
You have to take 30 hours of certified study in your field across every two years. This isn't a lot, but people tend to fuss about "why do CS people keep being expected to learn on our own?" ... Well, if we were Professional Engineers it wouldn't just be an expectation - it would be a requirement to maintain the license. You will again note the domain of the professional development is different - so civil and mechanical engineers aren't necessarily taking the same types of classes.
These requirements are set by the state licensure and part of legislative processes.
Furthermore, licensure requires state level legislation and makes it harder for employees (especially the EIT) to change jobs or move to other states for work there.
Licensure, the way that people often point to it as a way to solve the credentials problem vs interviews, isn't going to solve the problems that people think it would.
Furthermore, it is only something if there is a reason to do it. If there isn't a reason to have a licensed engineer signing off on designs and code there isn't a reason for a company to hire such.
Why should a company pay more for someone with a license to design their website when they could hire someone more cheaply who doesn't have a license? What penalties would a company have for having a secretary do some vbscripting in excel or a manager use Access rather than hiring a licensed developer?
But are you suggesting we have separate licenses for every different type of developer? We have new types coming up every few years.
The whole idea of guilds for developers is just stupid and impractical. It could never work on any long term or large scale basis.
> But are you suggesting we have separate licenses for every different type of developer? We have new types coming up every few years.
I didn’t suggest that at all and I honestly can’t figure out how you came to that interpretation unless you are hallucinating.
> The whole idea of guilds for developers is just stupid and impractical. It could never work on any long term or large scale basis.
What a convincing argument! You should get a cabinet post.
And yet welcome to leetcode grind.
If you need to fizzbuzz me, fine. But why am I still making word search solver project in my free time as if I'm applying for a college internship?
And I’m being an accelerationist hoping the whole thing collapses under its own ridiculousness.
Recruitment is broken even more than before chatgpt.
Hiring well is hard, specially if compensation isn't competitive enough to attract talented individuals who have a choice. It's also hard to change institutional hiring practices. People don't get fired by buying IBM, and they also don't get fired if they follow the same hiring practices in place in 2016.
> What are all those rounds for if we're getting engineers who aren't as valued for the team's needs at the end of the pipeline?
Software development is a multidiscinary field. It involves multiple non-overlapping skill sets, bot hard skills and soft skills. Also, you need multiple people vetting a candidate to eliminate corruption and help weed out candidates who outright clash with company culture. You need to understand that hiring someone is a disruptive activity, that impacts not only what skill sets are available in your organization but also how the current team dynamics. If you read around, you'll stumble upon stories of people who switch roles in reaction to new arrivals. It's important to get this sort of stuff right.
Well I'm still waiting. Your second paragraph seems to contradict the first. Which perfectly encapsulates the issue with hiring. Too afraid to try new things, so instead add beuracracy to leases accountability.
I think you haven't spend much time thinking about the issue. Changing hiring practices does not mean they are improve. It only means they changed. You are still faced with the task of hiring adequate talent, but if you change processes them now you don't have baselines and past experiences to guide you. You keep those baselines if you keep your hiring practices then you stick with something that is proven to work albeit with debatable optimality, and mitigate risks because your experience with the process helps you be aware of some red flags. The worst case scenario is that you repeat old errors, but those will be systematic errors which are downplayed by the fact that your whole organization is proof that your hiring practices are effective.
No, but I'd like to at least see conversation on how to improve the process. We aren't even at that point. We're just barely past acknowledging that it's even an issue.
>but if you change processes them now you don't have baselines and past experiences to guide you.
I argue we're already at this point. The reason we got past the above point of "acknowledging problem" (a decade too late, arguably) is that the baselines are failing to new technology, which is increasing false positives.
You have a point, but why does tech pick this point to finally decide not to "move fast and break things"? Not when it comes to law and ethics, but for aquiring new talent (which meanwhile is already disrupting heir teams with this AI slop?)
>those will be systematic errors which are downplayed by the fact that your whole organization is proof that your hiring practices are effective.
okay, so back to step zero then. Do we have a hiring problem? The thesis of this article says yes.
"it worked before" seems to be the antipattern the tech industry tried to fight back against for decades.
The current hiring practices are a result of acknowledging what they did before didn't work. The current ones work well enough that people don't wanna change it, the only ones who wanna change it are engineers not the companies.
Okay cool. Back to step 0. Working as planned, ignore the dumpster fire in the back. Hope they reap what they sow.
This goes beyond destructive thinking. Again, I hope the companies reap what they sow.
If you're not going to even acknowledge the issue in the article, there's no point in discussing the issue in a forum. Good day.
This is not limited to junior devs. I had the displeasure of working with a guy who was hired as a senior dev who heavily delegated any work they did. He failed to even do the faintest review of what the coding agent and of course did zero testing. At one time these stunts resulted in a major incident where one of these glorious PRs pushed code that completely inverted a key business rule and resulted in paying customers being denied access to a paid product.
Sometimes people are slackers with little to no ownership or pride in their craftsmanship, and just stumbled upon a career path they are not very good at. They start at juniors but they can idle long enough to waddle their way to senior positions. This is not a LLM problem, or caused by it.
And then in the next PR, you have to request the exact same changes
Everybody else through my 21-year career has almost universally either been helpful or neutral (mostly just busy). If you think code reviews are just for bikeshedding about style minutia, then you're really missing out. I personally have found it extremely rewarding to invest in junior SWEs and see them progress in their careers.
It is not.
In a previous role I was at the principal level trying to mentor someone who had somehow been promoted up to senior but was still regularly turning in code for review that I wouldn't have expected from an intern— it was an exhausting, mind-numbing process trying to develop some sense of engineering taste in this person, and all of this was before LLMs. This person was definitely not just there for the money; they really looked up to the top-level engineers at our org and aspired to be be there, but everything just came across as extremely shallow, like engineering cosplay: every design review or bit of feedback was soundbites from a how-to-code TED talk or something. Lots of regurgitated phrases about writing code to be "maintainable" or "elegant" but no in-the-bones feeling about what any of that actually meant.
Anyway, I think a person like this is probably maximally susceptible to the fawning ego-strokes that an AI companion delivers alongside its suggestions; I think I ultimately fear that combination more than I fear a straight up mercenary for whom it's a clear transaction of money -> code.
Very odd. It was like he only had ever worked on school projects assigned to him, and had no actual interest in exploring the problems we were working on.
But it can be tricky to evaluate this in the kind of structured, disciplined way that big-company HR departments like to see, where all interviewees get a consistent set of questions and are "scored" on their responses according to a fixed rubric.
This guy claimed to want to get promoted to Senior, but didn't do anything Senior-shaped. If you're going to own a component of a system, I should be able to ask you intelligent questions about how you might evolve it, and you should be able to tell me why someone cares about it.
Just pick the two you like the most.
I suppose it depends on the team and industry. This would be unheard of behavior for games, for example. Why you taking a pay cut and likely working more hours to just say "I don't know, whatever works?". You'd ideally be working towards some sort of goal. Management, domain knowledge, just begin able to solve hard problems.
Welp, to each their own I suppose.
>Strong desire to work on a specific piece of the code (or to not work on one) might even in some cases be a red flag.
I understand an engineer should compromise. But if you want to specialize in high performance computing and you're pigeonholed into 6 months of front end web, I can understand the frustration. They need to consider their career too. It's too easy for the manager to ignore you of you don't stand up for yourself. Some even count on it and plan around the turnover.
Of course, if they want nothing other than kernel programming as a junior and you simply need some easy but important work done for a month, it can be unreasonable. There needs to be a balance as a team.
It's worth considering how aggressively open the door has been for the last decade. Each new generation of engineers increasingly disappointed me with how much more motivated they were by a big pay check than they were for anything remotely related to engineering. There's nothing wrong with choosing a career for money, but there's also nothing wrong about missing a time when most people chose it because they were interested in it.
However I have noticed a shift: while half the juniors I work with are just churning out AI slop, the other half are really interested in the craft of software engineering and understanding computer science better.
We'll need new senior engineers in a few years, and I suspect they will come from a smaller pool of truly engaged juniors today.
There are still junior engineers out there who have experiments on their githubs, who build weird little things because they can. Those people were the best engineers anyway. The last decade of "money falls from the sky and anyone can learn to code" brought in a bunch of people who were interested in it for the money, and those people were hard to work with anyway. I'd lump the sidehustle "ship 30 projects in 30 days" crowd in here too. I think AI will effectively eliminate junior engineers in the second camp, but absolutely will not those in the first camp. It will certainly make it harder for those junior engineers at the margins between those two extremes.
There's nothing more discouraging than trying to guide a junior engineer who is just typing what you say into cursor. Like clearly you don't want to absorb this, and I can also type stuff into an AI, so why are you here?
The best engineers I've worked with build things because they are truly interested in them, not because they're trying to get rich. This is true of literally all creative pursuits.
If software were "just" a job without any of the gratifying aspects, I wouldn't do nearly as good a job.
Last re-engineering project was mostly done when they fired me as the probational period was almost over, and seems they did not want me further - too expensive? - and anyone can finish it right? Well...
So i am finishing it for them, one more month, without a contract, for my own sake. Maybe they pay, maybe they don't - this is reality. But I want to see this thing working live.. i have been through maybe 20-30 projects/products of such size and bigger, and only 3-4 had flown. The rest did not - and never for technical reasons.
Then/now i'll be back to the job-search. Ah. Long lists of crypto-or-adtech-or-ai-dreams, mostly..
Mentoring, juniors? i have not seen anything even faintly smelling of that, for decade..
I keep hearing this and find it utterly perplexing.
As a junior, desperate to prove that I could hang in this world, I'd comb over my PRs obsessively. I viewed each one as a showcase of my abilities. If a senior had ever pointed at a line of code and asked "what does this do?" If I'd ever answered "I don't know," I would've been mortified.
I don't want to shake my fist at a cloud, but I have to ask genuinely (not rhetorically): do these kids not have any shame at all? Are they not the slightest bit embarrassed to check in a pile of slop? I just want to understand.
I'm approaching 30 years of professional work and still feel this way. I've found some people are like this, and others aren't. Those who aren't tend to not progress as far.
> embarrassed to check in a pile of slop
I feel that's the bare minimum a junior should be asking. the "this is useful" or "this is slop" will come with experience, but you need to at least be able to explain what's going on.
the transition to mid and senior goes when you can start to quantify other aspects of the code. Like performance, how widespread a change affects the codebase at large, the input/outputs expected, and the overall correctness based on the language. Balancing those parameters and using it to accurately estimate a project scope is when you're really thinking like a senior.
early on when I was doing iOS development I learned that "m34" was the magic trick to make flipping a view around have a nice perspective effect, and I didn't know what "m34" actually meant but I definitely knew what the effect of the line of code that mutated it was...
Googling on it now seems like a common experience for early iOS developers :)
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/14261180/need-better-and...
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3881446/meaning-of-m34-o...
seems like something a work policy can fix quickly. If not something filtered in the interview pipeline. I wouldn't just let juniors go around and try to copy-pasting non-compilable Stackoverflow code, why would I do it here?
But it's hard to know if a candidate is one of those when hiring, which also means that if you are one of those juniors it is hard for you to prove it to a prospective employer.
It's clear why people do it (more pay) but it sets up bad incentives for the companies. Why would a company invest money in growing the technical skill set of an employee, just to have them leave as soon as they can get a better offer?
You're falling for the exact same fallacy experienced by failed salesmen. "Why would I bother investing time in this customer when they're just going to take my offer to another dealership for a better deal?"
Answer: you offer a good deal and work with people honestly, because if you don't, you'll never get a customer.
What you say only works if everyone is doing it. But if you're spending resources on juniors and raises, you can easily be outcompeted and outpoached by companies using that saved money to poach your best employees.
give a big enough raise and they won't want to be poached. You won't retain everyone, but your goal probably isn't to compete with Google to begin with. So why worry of the scenario of boosting a good junior from 100k to 150k but losing them to a 250k job?
In some ways you will also need to read the room. I don't like the mentality of "I won't hire this person, they are only here for money", but to some extent you need to gauge how much of them is mission-focused and how much would leave the minute they get a 10k counter-offer. adjust your investments accordingly and focus on making something that makes money off that.
Th power structure that makes up a typical owners-vs-employees company demands that every employee be replacable. Denying raises & paying the cost of churn are vital to maintaining this rule. Ignoring this rule often results in e.g. one longer-tenured engineer becoming irreplacable enough to be able to act insubordinately with impunity.
A bit bleak but that's capitalism for you. Unionization, working at a smaller companies, or at employee-owned cooperatives are all alternatives to this dynamic.
It's no surprise the market adapts to the new terms and conditions. But companies simply don't care enough to focus on retention.
This is why I never do internal job transfers. The total comp doesn't change. If I do an external job change, I will get a pay rise. I say it to my peers in private: "Loyalty is for suckers; you get paid less."
I'm pretty sure it just comes down to bean-counting: "we have a new fulltime permanent asset for $100k" vs "we have a new fulltime permanent asset for $120k" is effectively the same thing, and there's a clear "spend money, acquire person" transaction going on. Meanwhile, "we spent $20k on an asset we already have" is.. a hard sell. What are you buying with that $20k exactly? 20% more hours? 20% more output? No? Then why are we spending the money?
It's certainly possible to dance around it talking about reducing risk ("there's a risk this person leaves, which will cause...") but it's bogged down in hypotheticals and kinda a hard sell. Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just fire staff for a week then re-hire them at a new salary.
This incentive is entirely backwards. It should be "what are we losing with not spending that 20k?". You lose out on someone used to the company workflow, you waste any training you invested in them, you create a hole that strains your other 3-4 100k engineers, and you add a time strain to your managers to spend time interviewing a new member.
if you really believe you can buy all that back for 120k as if you ran short on milkk, you're missing the forest for the tree.
>Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just fire staff for a week then re-hire them at a new salary.
if society conditions a workforce to understand the issue, sure. But psychologically. you'd create an even lower morale workplace. Even for a week, people don't want to be dropped like a hot potato, even if you pick it up later as it cools. People want some form of stability, especially in an assumed full time role.
I guess that's how we got here to begin with. We take a workforce and treat is as expendable instead of as a proper team.
I suppose it will vary per industry but I can't imagine an other kind of engineering being comfortable just letting go of people mid-project because "we can afford to lose them".
Employers get straight up lazy, by having soft negotiating employees to ignore. This laziness will bite them.
You keep a good thing going, you buy oil for the machinery, you keep your part of the bargain and do the maintenance. You pay the correct price for the stuff you are lucky enough to have been getting on the cheap.
I like the directness of the question: "Why should I pay more when it won't burn down right this instand if I don't?" This is a question asked all over, and it is dangerous, keeping anything going requires maintenance and knowledge in how to maintain it. That goes for cars and it goes for people.
This is not business, it is miserly behaviour, it is being cheap.
The miser will find himself in a harsh, transactional, brutal world. Because that is the only way for people to protect themselves against him.
But as someone who originally wanted to be a specialist (or at the very leastT-shaped), I see a lot more problem in fostering specialists than generalists under this model. Sometimes you do just need that one guru who breathes C++ to come in and dig deep into your stack. Not always, but the value is irreplaceable.
I've started viewing developers that have never maintained an existing piece of software for over 3 years with skepticism. Obviously, with allowances for people who have very good reasons to be in that situation (just entered the market, bad luck with employers, etc).
There's a subculture of adulation for developers that "get things done fast" which, more often than not, has meant that they wrote stuff that wasn't well thought out, threw it over the wall, and moved on to their next gig. They always had a knack of moving on before management could connect the dots that all the operational problems were related to the person who originally wrote it and not the very-competent people fixing the thing. Your average manager doesn't seem to have the capability to really understand tech debt and how it impacts ability to deliver over time; and in many cases they'll talk about the "rock star" developer that got away with a glimmer in their eye.
Saw a post of someone on Hacker News the other day talking about how they were creating things faster than n-person teams, and then letting the "normies" (their words not mine) maintain it while moving on to the next thing. Thats exactly the kind of person I'd like to weed out.
Some genius MBA determined that people feel more rewarded by recognition and autonomy than pay, which is actually true. But it means that all the recognition and autonomy in the world won't make you stay if you can make 50% more somewhere else.
> culture of job-hopping
> Why would a company invest money in growing the technical skill set of an employee
At Taos, there was a monthly training session / tech talk on some subject.
At Network Appliance ('98-'09), there was a moderate push to go to trainings and they paid for the devs on the team I was on to go to the perl conference (when it was just down the road one year everyone - even the tech writers - went).
At a retail company that I worked at ('10-'14), they'd occasionally bring in trainers on some thing that... about half a dozen of the more senior developers (who would then be able to spread the knowledge out ... part of that was a formal "do a presentation on the material from the past two weeks for the rest of your team.")
However, as time went on and as juniors would leave sooner the appetite for a company to spend money on training sessions has dissipated. It could be "Here is $1000 training budget if you ask your manager" becoming $500 now. It could be that there aren't any more conferences that the company is willing to spend $20k to send a team to.
If half of the junior devs are going to jump to the next tier of company and the other half aren't going to become much better... why do that training opportunity at all?
Training absolutely used to be a thing that was much more common... but so too were tenures of half a decade or longer.
So, there are two parts to this:
The first is that a lot of those tasks are non-trivial for someone who isn't a digital native (and occasionally trivial for people who are). That is to say that I often found myself doing tasks that my bosses couldn't do in a reasonable time span; they were tasks which they had ALWAYS delegated, which is another way of saying that they were tasks in which proficiency was not necessary at their level.
This leads into the second part, which is that performing these tasks did not help me advance in relevant experience at all. They were not related to higher-level duties, nor did they endear me to the people who could have introduced me to such duties. My seniors had no interest in our growth as workers; anyone who wanted to see that growth had to take it into their own hands, at which point "junior-level" jobs are only worth the paycheck.
I don't know if it's a senior problem generally, or something specific to this cohort of Boomer/Gen-X seniors. Gun-to-my-head, I would wager the latter. They give enough examples in other arenas of public life to lend credence to the notion that that they simply don't care what happens to their juniors, or to their companies after they leave, particularly if there is added hassle in caring. This is an accusation often lobbed at my own generation, to which I say, it's one of the few things our forebears actually did teach us.
Yet again, AI is just a cover for mismanagement.
That said, you hit on something I've been feeling, the thing these models are best at by far is stuff that wasn't worth doing before.
I've also written a lot of python 2 in my career, and writing python 3 still isn't quite native-level for me - and the AI tools let me make up for my lack of knowledge of modern Python.
Not disagreeing that this is happening in the industry but it still feels like a missed opportunity to not hire juniors. Not only do you have the upcoming skill gap as you mention, but someone needs to instruct AI to do these menial/easy tasks. Perhaps it's only my opinion but I think it would be prudent to instead see this as just having junior engineers who can get more menial tasks done, instead of expecting to add it to the senior dev workflow at zero cost to output.
Everything turned out fine. Turns out you don't really need to be able to perform long division by hand. Sure, you should still understand the algorithm at some level, esp. if you work in STEM, but otherwise, not so much.
There were losses. I recall my AP physics professors was one of the old school types (retired from industry to teach). He could find the answer to essentially any problem to about 1-2 digits of precision in his head nearly instantly. Sometimes he'd have to reach for his slide rule for harder things or to get a few more digits. Ain't no one that can do that now (for reasonable values of "no one"). And, it is a loss, in that he could catch errors nearly instantly. Good skill to have. A better skill is to be able to set up a problem for finite element analysis, write kernels for operations, find an analytic solution using Mathematica (we don't need to do integrals by hand anymore for the mot part), unleash R to validate your statistics, and so on. The latter are more valuable than the former, and so we willingly pay the cost. Our ability to crank out integrals isn't what it was, but our ability to crank out better jet engines, efficient cars, computer vision models has exploded. Worth the trade off.
Recently watched an Alan Guth interview, and he made a throwaway comment, paraphrased: "I proved X in this book, well, Mathematica proved...". The point being that the proof was multiple pages per step, and while he could keep track of all the sub/superscripts and perform the Einstein sums on all the tensors correctly, why??? I'd rather he use his brain to think up new solutions to problems, not manipulate GR equations by hand.
I'm ignoring AGI/singularity type events, just opining about the current tooling.
Yah, the transition will be bumpy. But we will learn the skills we need for the new tools, and the old skills just won't matter as much. When they do, yah, it'll be a bit more painful, but so what, we gained so much efficiency we can afford the losses.
Who knows if we'll even need senior devs in 5 years. We'll see what happens. I think the role of software development will change so much those years of technical experience as a senior won't be so relevant but that's just my 5 cents.
While the work seems to take similar amounts of time, I spend drastically less time fixing bugs, bugs that take me days or God forbid weeks, solved in minutes usually, sometimes maybe an hour if its obscure enough. You just have to feed the model enough context, full stack trace, every time.
Man, I wish this was true. I've given the same feedback on a colleague's clearly LLM-generated PRs. Initially I put effort into explaining why I was flagging the issues, now I just tag them with a sadface and my colleague replies "oh, cursor forgot." Clearly he isn't reading the PRs before they make it to me; so long as it's past lint and our test suite he just sends the PR.
I'd worry less if the LLMs weren't prone to modifying the preconditions of the test whenever they fail such that the tests get neutered, rather than correctly resolving the logic issues.
The bad product managers have become 10x worse because they just generate AI garbage to spray at the engineering team. We are now writing AI review process for our user stories to counter the AI generation of the product team. I'd much rather spend my time building things than having AI wars between teams.
Which stands to reason you'll need less of them. I'm really hoping this somehow leads to an explosion of new companies being built and hiring workers , otherwise - not good for us.
Depends on how much demand there would be for somewhat-cheaper software. Human hours taken could well remain the same.
Also depends on whether this approach leads to a whole lot of badly-fucked projects that companies can’t do without and have to hire human teams to fix…
I've found Opus 4.5 as a big upgrade compared to any of the other models. Big step up and the minor issues that were annoying and I needed to watch out for with Sonnet and GPT5.1.
It's to the point where I'm on the side of, if the models are offline or I run out of tokens for the 5 hour window or the week (with what I'm paying now), there's kind of no use of doing work. I can use other models to do planning or some review, but then wait until I'm back with Opus 4.5 to do the code.
It still absolutely requires review from me and planning before writing the code, and this is why there can be some slop that goes by, but it's the same as if you have a junior and they put in weak PRs. Difference is much quicker planning which the models help with, better implementation with basic conventions compared to juniors, and much easier to tell a model to make changes compared to a human.
I guess it depends on the project type, in some cases like you're saying way faster. I definitely recognize I've shaved weeks off a project, and I get really nuanced and Claude just updates and adjusts.
which means either devs will take over architectural roles (which already exist and are filled) or architects will take over dev roles. same goes for testing/QA - these are already positions within the industry in addition to being hats that we sometimes put on out of necessity or personal interest.
This is mostly a good thing provided you have a clear separation between solution exploration and actually shipping software - as the extra work put into productionizing a solution may not be obvious or familiar to someone who can use AI to identify a bugfix candidate, but might not know how we go about doing pre-release verification.
We had code school grads asking for $110-$130. Meanwhile, I can hire an actual senior engineer for $200 and he/she will be easily 4x as productive and useful, while also not taking a ton of mentorship time.
Since even that $110 costs $140, it's tough to understand how companies aren't taking a bath on $700/day.
Its even more frustrating knowing those people went through a overly long gauntlet and prevailed over hundreds of other qualified would-be engineers. Its so weird just seeing an entire pipeline built around minimizing this situation utterly fail.
you can't have rent at 3.5k a month and not expect 6 figures when requiring in-office work. old wisdom of "30% of salary goes to rent" suggest that that kind of housing should only be rented if you're making 140k. Anyone complaining about junior costs in these areas needs to join in bringing housing prices down.
Bear in mind these types can explain things like why word-alignment matters and train themselves into being net productive within a few weeks.
Basically this type of maintenance work for any sufficiently complex codebase. (Over 20k LOC)
When I was an QA intern / Software Dev Intern. I did all of that junk.
I mean, they just want to write code without testing it? Or fixing the bugs that come out of it?
Other roles in a software team can handle making a complete test suite for a project, and making sure that it covers all of the required end user functionality. In some shops they will push all of these together into a "fullstack" kind of role, in other software shops they will have dedicated team members who's job it is to handle some of this burden. Interns historically filled in the glue for this.
Also in my part of the Ruby community most folks love tests and are that their code gets better when they write tests. I’d be sad the day I’m writing code and someone else writes the tests.
AI provides a bar. You need to be at least better than AI at coding to become a professional. It'll take genuine interest in the technology to surpass AI and clear that bar. The next generation of software professionals will be smaller, but unencumbered by incompetents. Their smaller number will be compensated by AI that can take care of the mundane tasks, and with any luck it's capabilities will only increase.
Surely I'm not the only one who's had colleagues with 10+years experience who can't manage to check out a new branch in git? We've been hiring people we shouldn't have hired.
Is there bar is set at a competent mid level engineer, people entering the industry need a path from algorithms 101 to above that bar which involves getting paid.
But that means there's no need for entry-level glassblowers, and everyone in the field with any significant experience is super old. The pipeline has been dead for a while now.
Tech companies are betting that in 5 years, AI should be good enough to replace mid-levels.
Rinse and repeat with seniors 5 years after that.
Hard to say if that bet will pay off, or what the endgame would be; just the CEO commanding an company of AIs?
Plenty of skilled work requires a master’s or PhD. CS, for those who want a safe, secure job, looks like it’s going that way.
Was having a discussion the other day with someone, and we came to the same conclusion. You used to be able to make yourself useful by doing the easy / annoying tasks that had to be done, but more senior people didn't want to waste time dealing with. In exchange you got on-the-job experience, until you were able to handle more complex tasks and grow your skill set. AI means that those 'easy' tasks can be automated away, so there's less immediate value in hiring a new grad.
I feel the effects of this are going to take a while to be felt (5 years?); mid-level -> senior-level transitions will leave a hole behind that can't be filled internally. It's almost like the aftermath of a war killing off 18-30 year olds leaving a demographic hole, or the effect of covid on education for certain age ranges.