jygg4

Agree. Nice to see a post with proper economic thought on the topic.

If you’re not being deliberate, you’re not thinking in my view.

The act of thinking is to reach deep inside oneself.

Yup exactly.

Being able to hold someone liable for a F up has been how we have been able to function as a society and get to where we are today.

Kissing your ass comments aside… first of all - define a 10x developer.

We’ve all seen this phrase thrown around and it’s useless. Define the characteristics of one.

I’d argue the hiring of juniors is dropping because why should a firm ‘invest’ in someone that is likely to leave before they become of benefit for the firm? Mobility in the software engineer profession harms it. The fanfare around LLM’s enhances the argument via leverage provided to seniors.

E.g in accounting etc people tend to stick around for a long time in one firm… hence the expense is an investment. Firms invest in juniors to have future directors, partners etc. this is not a model that applies to software engineering. It may have done at one point, but not anymore.

Indeed. Why is this post down voted? There’s always trade-offs taking place, it’s good to call them out.

As long as humans are needed to review code, it sounds your role evolves toward prompting and reviewing.

Which is akin to driving a car - the motor vehicle itself doesn’t know where to go. It requires you to prompt via steering and braking etc, and then to review what is happening in response.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing - reviewing code ultimately matters most. As long as what is produced is more often than not correct and legible.. now this is a different issue for which there isn’t a consensus across software engineer’s.

The models lose the ability to inject subtle and nuance stuff as they scale up, is what I’ve observed.

The issue with llm’s is trust.

I don’t see that ever going away. Humans have learned to trust other humans over a large time scale with rules in place to control behaviour.