The irony of using an AI generated image for this post…
AI imagery makes any article look cheaper in my view, I am more inclined to “judge the book by its cover”.
Why would you slap something so lazy on top of a piece of writing you (assuming it isn’t also written by AI) put time and effort into?
I know that it’s a meme to hate on generated images people need to understand just how much that ship has sailed.
Getting upset at generative AI is about as absurd as getting upset at CGI special effects or digital images. Both of these things were the subject of derision when they started being widely used. CGI was seen as a second rate knockoff of “real” special effects and digital images were seen as the tool of amateur photographers with their Photoshop tools acting as a crutch in place of real photography talent.
No amount of arguments film purist or nostalgia for the old days of puppets and models in movies was going to stop computer graphics and digital images capture and manipulation. Today those arguments seem so quaint and ignorant that most people are not even aware that there was even a controversy.
Digital images and computer graphics have nearly completely displaced film photography and physical model-based special effects.
Much like those technologies, generative AI isn’t going away and it’s only going to improve and become more ubiquitous.
This isn’t the hill to die on no matter how many upvoted you get.
I thought it was intentional AI slop
I work for a fortune 500 company.
just recently lost a principal engineer that built an entire platform over the last four years.
just before they left I noticed they were using AI an awful lot. like…a lot a lot. like, “I don’t know the answer on a screen share so I’ll ask ChatGPT how to solve the problem and copy/paste it directly into the environment until it works” a lot.
they got fired for doing non-related shit.
it’s taken us three months, hundreds of hours from at least 5 other principal engineers to try to unravel this bullshit and we’re still not close.
the contributions and architecture scream AI all over it.
Point is. I’ll happily let idiots destroy the world of software because I’ll make fat bank later as a consultant fixing their bullshit.
There’s also the tribal knowledge of people who’ve worked somewhere for a few years. There’s always a few people who just know where or how a particular thing works and why it works that way. AI simply cannot replace that.
Institutional knowledge takes years to replace.
I’m just a dabbler at coding and even i can see getting rid of programmers and relying to ai for it will lead to disaster. Ai is useful, but only for smallest scraps of code because anything bigger will get too muddled. For me, it liked to come up with its own stupid ideas and then insist on getting stuck on those so i had to constantly reset the conversation. But i managed to have it make useful little function that i couldnt have thought up myself as it used some complex mathematical things.
Also relying on it is quick way to kind of get things done but without understanding at all how things work. Eventually this will lead to such horrible and unsecure code that no one can fix or maintain. Though maybe its good thing eventually since it will bring those shitty companies to ruin. any leadership in those companies should be noted down now though, so they cant pretend later to not have had anything to do with it.
Even if I ask AI for how to do a process it will frequently respond with answers for the wrong version, even though I gave the version, parameters that don’t work, hand waving answers that are useless, etc.
I find it’s the most useful when asking it for small snippets of code or dealing with boilerplate stuff. Anything more complicated usually results in something broken.
yeah, there are many things its easier to just give up having the ai do it. even if you somehow succeed it will likely be such mess it gives you its not worth it
AI mostly seems useful when you don’t know a specific concept and just need the base ideas. That said, given it’s often confidently wrong and doesn’t involve humans actively steering you toward better ideas, I still find Stack Overflow more helpful. Sometimes the answer to your problem is to stop doing what you are trying to do and attack the problem from a different angle.
I also find it is best when I’m very specific and give as many identifiers as possible. App name, version, OS, quoted error code, etc.
Like relying on automated systems for aircraft so much. You get things like planes going into landing mode because they think they are close to the runway.
It’s hard for people who haven’t experienced the loss of experts to understand. Not a programmer but I worked in aerospace engineering for 35 years. The drive to transfer value to execs and other stakeholders by reducing the cost of those who literally make that value always ends costing more.
those executives act like parasites. They bring no value and just leech the life from the companies.
Well, yeah, but those costs are for tomorrow’s executive to figure out, we need those profits NOW
Executives think they are the most important part of the company. They are high level managers, that is all.
It’s utterly bizarre. The customers lose out by receiving an inferior product at the same cost. The workers lose out by having their employment terminated. And even the company loses out by having its reputation squandered. The only people who gain are the executives and the ownership.
<cough>Boeing<cough>
Everyone. But Boeing did a pretty fucked up job of it.
This is prophetic and yet as clear as day to anyone who has actually had to rely on their own code for anything.
I have lately focused all of my tech learning efforts and home lab experiments on cloud-less approaches. Sure the cloud is a good idea for scalable high traffic websites, but it sure also seems to enable police state surveillance and extreme vendor lock-in.
It’s really just a focus on fundamentals. But all those cool virtualization technologies that enable ‘cloud’ are super handy in a local system too. Rolling back container snapshots on specific services while leaving the general system unimpacted is useful anywhere.
But it is all on hardware I control. Apropos of the article, the pendulum will swing back toward more focus on local infrastructure. Cloud won’t go away, but more people are realizing that it also means someone else owns your data/your business.
I think they were suckered in also by the supposed lower cost of running services, which, as it happens, isn’t lower at all and in fact is more expensive. But you laid off the Datacenter staff so. Pay up, suckers.
Neat toolsets though.
The cloud provides incredible flexibility, scale, and reliability. It is expensive to have 3+ data centers with a datacenter staff. If the data center was such a great deal for the many 9s of reliability provided by the cloud, company’s would be shifting back in mass at this point
Oh no way. It was a year(s)-long process to get to the cloud, then the devs got hooked on all the toys AWS was giving them and got strapped in even further. They couldn’t get out now if they wanted to. Not without huge expense and re-writing a bunch of stuff. No CTO is going die on that hill.
They jumped in the cloud for the same reason they jumped into AI - massive hype. Only the cloud worked. And now % of the profits are all Amazon’s. No app store needed. MuwAHhahahAhahahaa
Imagine a company that fires its software engineers, replaces them with AI-generated code, and then sits back, expecting everything to just work. This is like firing your entire fire department because you installed more smoke detectors. It’s fine until the first real fire happens.
This is a bad analogy.
It would be more akin to firing your fire departments, because you installed automatic hoses in front of everyone’s homes. When a fire starts, the hoses will squirt water towards the fire, but sometimes it’ll miss, sometimes it’ll squirt backwards, sometimes it’ll squirt the neighbour’s house, and sometimes it’ll squirt the fire.
Sure but they’re not going to fire all of them. They’re going to fire 90% then make 10% put out the fires and patch the leaks while working twice as many hours for less pay.
The company will gradually get worse and worse until bankrupt or sold and the c-suite bails with their golden parachutes.
I don’t know. I look at it like firing all your construction contractors after built out all your stores in a city. You might need some construction trades to maintain your stores and your might need to relocate a store every once in a while, but you don’t need the same construction staff on had as you did with the initial build out.
In my experience, you actually need more people to maintain and extend existing software compared to the initial build out.
Usually because of scalability concerns, increasing complexity of the system and technical debt coming due.
Most extension today is enshitification. We’ve also seen major platforms scale to the size of Earth.
If you’re only going to maintain and don’t have a plan on adding features outside of duct taping AI to the software, what use is it maintaining a dev team at the size you needed it to be when creating new code?
While true, that is a weak analogy. Software rots and needs constant attention of competent people or shit stacks.
I’m not saying you can fire everyone, but the maintenance team doesn’t need to be the size of the development team if the goal is to only maintain features.
Although I agree, I think AI code generation is the follow up mistake. The original mistake was to offshore coding to fire qualified engineers.
Not all of offshore is terrible, that’d be a dumb generalization, but there are some terrible ones out there. A few of our clients that opted to offshore are being drowned is absolute trash code. Given that we always have to clean it up anyway, I can see the use-case for AI instead of that shop.
I think the core takeaway is your shouldn’t outsource core capabilities. If the code is that critical to your bottomline, pay for quality (which usually means no contractors - local or not).
If you outsource to other developers or AI it means most likely they will care less and/or someone else can just as easily come along and do it too.
…shouldn’t outsource core capabilities.
This right here.
The core takeaway is that except for a few instances the executives still don’t understand jack shit and when a smooth talking huckster dazzles them with ridiculous magic to make them super rich they all follow them to the poke.
Judges and Executives understand nothing about computers in 2025. that’s the fucked up part. AI is just how we’re doing it this time.
Companies that are incompetently led will fail and companies that integrate new AI tools in a productive and useful manner will succeed.
Worrying about AI replacing coders is pointless. Anyone who writes code for a living understands the limitations that these models have. It isn’t going to replace humans for quite a long time.
Language models are hitting some hard limitations and were unlikely to see improvements continue at the same pace.
Transformers, Mixture of Experts and some training efficiency breakthroughs all happened around the same time which gave the impression of an AI explosion but the current models are essentially taking advantage of everything and we’re seeing pretty strong diminishing returns on larger training sets.
So language models, absent a new revolutionary breakthrough, are largely as good as they’re going to get for the foreseeable future.
They’re not replacing software engineers, at best they’re slightly more advanced syntax checkers/LSPs. They may help with junior developer level tasks like refactoring or debugging… but they’re not designing applications.
What most people forget is that as a programmer/designer/etc, your job is to take what your client/customer tells you they want, listen to them, then try to give them what they ACTUALLY NEED, which is something that I think needs to be highlighted. Most people making requests to programmers, don’t really even know what they want, or why they want it. They had some meeting and people decided that, ‘Yes we need the program to do X!’ without realizing that what they are asking for won’t actually get them the result they want.
AI will be great at giving people exactly what they ask for…but that doesn’t mean its what they actually needed…
Great points. Also:
… AI will be great at giving people exactly what they ask for …
Honestly, I’m not even sure about this. With hallucinations and increasingly complex prompts that it fails to handle, it’s just as likely to regurgitate crap. I don’t even know if AI will get to a better state before all of this dev-firing starts to backfire and sour most company’s want to even touch AI for most development.
Humans talk with humans and do their best to come up with solutions. AI takes prompts and looks at historical human datasets to try and determine what a human would do. It’s bound to run into something novel eventually, especially if there aren’t more datasets to pull in because human-generated development solutions become scarce.
AI will never not-require a human to hand hold it. Because AI can never know what’s true.
Because it doesn’t “know” anything. It only has ratios of usage maps between connected entities we call “words”.
Sure, you can run it and hope for the best. But that will fail sooner or later.
Also, LLM doesn’t usually have memory or experience. It’s the first page of Google search every time you put in your tokens. A forever trainee that would never leave that stage in their career.
Human’s abilities like pattern recognition, intuition, acummulation of proven knowledge in combination makes us become more and more effective at finding the right solution to anything.
The LLM bubble can’t replace it and also actively hurts it as people get distanced from actual knowledge by the code door of LLM. They learn how to formulate their requests instead of learning how to do stuff they actually need. This outsourcing makes sense when you need a cookie recipe once a year, it doesn’t when you work in a bakery. What makes the doug behave each way? You don’t need to ask so you wouldn’t know.
And the difference between asking like Lemmy and asking a chatbot is the ultimative convincing manner in which it tells you things, while forums, Q&A boards, blogs handled by people usually have some of these humane qualities behind replies and also an option for someone else to throw a bag of dicks at the suggestion of formating your system partition or turning stuff off and on.
that stuff should really get worked out in the agile process as the customer reacts to each phase of the project.
Getting the real requirements nailed down from the start is critical, not just doing the work the customer asked for. Otherwise, you get 6 months into a project and realize you must scrap 90% of the completed work; the requirements from the get-go were bad. The customer never fundamentally understood the problem and you never bothered to ask. Everyone is mad and you lost a repeat customer.
yeah but with agile they should be checking the product out when its a barely working poc to determine if the basic idea is what they expect and as it advances they should be seeing each stage. Youll never get the proper requirements by second guessing what they say.
I’m sorry, I mostly agree with the sentiment of the article in a feel-good kind of way, but it’s really written like how people claim bullies will get their comeuppance later in life, but then you actually look them up later and they have high paying jobs and wonderful families. There’s no substance here, just a rant.
The author hints at analogous cases in the past of companies firing all of their engineers and then having to scramble to hire them back, but doesn’t actually get into any specifics. Be specific! Talk through those details. Prove to me the historical cases are sufficiently similar to what we’re starting to see now that justifies the claims of the rest of the article.
Come back in 3 years and the “historical cases” will have appeared.
I just hope people won’t go back to these abusive jobs. The oligarchy that runs the US has shown it is more than happy to lay people off to cool wages and the Fed is more than happy to blame workers getting paid a reasonable amount as the cause of inflation.
