The coding and debugging part will be GenAI and possibly guardrails (harness engineering) tuned specifically for fintech, which they are also well-suited to implement.

LLMs routinely fail at our business specifics: Local tax regulations, particularities of the accounting process, specifics of our ledger implementations. They're great at refactoring, translating between languages, tracing bugs on existing code even, but there is always many things subtly wrong iterating and expanding our domain.

This might be because the companies I worked for happen to be tackling complex domains precisely for moat-building reasons. They stay in business explicitly because there's not a book out there you can read to build a clone, the knowhow stays inside.

Also, a fintech whose managers recommend speeding up design docs with AI sounds way too careless to be in the money handling business. It's way, way too easy to end up with millions incorrectly allocated, particularly if you deal with high volumes of small transactions. These bugs are always a bitch to deal with because correcting the logic is just step one, you then have to correct all the wrongly calculated data in immutable DBs, move around the red tape and client comms, and your fix is bound to become a gotcha that new features and observability have to take into account ("remember that there's a bump in the data in february 2 because we had incident X".)

What I think is often overlooked is the human "Willingness" and "Care" of staying with the thing for the lack of a better term. What I mean by that is that a lot of people just don't care enough, or don't want to, build, maintain, and own things. Sure you can ship V1 faster, but will you remain on the grind?

I think a great example of what probably will happen is found in Suno, the AI Music thing. I don't know if y'all have tried it, but it now produces really good stuff. What's happening there? A lot of people play with their own little universe and get tired quickly, move away from it, and only a few prolific creators stay and turn it into a "job like" environment.

We may have shifted the scale and the economics of "delegation" and "execution" but I think there are still a lot of other factors to consider.

I work in DevOps at a firm that has been very enthusiastic about using LLMs (in the good sense).

The phases were basically:

- try out having the LLM do "a lot"

- now even more

- now run multiple agents

- back to single agents but have the agents build tools

- tools that are deterministic AND usable by both the humans (EDIT: and the LLMs)

The reasons:

1. Deterministic tools (for both deployments and testing) get you a binary answer and it's repeatable

2. In the event of an outage, you can always fall back to the tool that a human can run

3. It's faster. A quick script can run in <30 seconds but "confabulating" always seemed to take 2-3 minutes.

Really, we are back to this article: https://spawn-queue.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3194653.3197520 aka "make a list of tasks, write scripts for each task, combine the scripts into functions, functions become a system"

-- END of original post --

What I would add:

if you let LLMs do whatever they want, they will happily make code. You can add tests to confirm that the tests work (which you used to do with human code, right?). You can also read the code.

When you read the code, you'll find that they sometimes do totally bananas things that still produce working code (I've seen humans do this too but that's another story).

In other words, you still need to make sure the system being built makes sense.

More succinctly:

Coding may be dead but software engineering is alive and kicking.

Ride the wave. You rode it when websites/webapps were the wave. I came into software industry before internet, kept changing my horse. You are never too old to learn new tricks. The new wave create new kind of work and workers. Be one of them. Ride the beast, master the tools. It's the same game again.

Opus is getting good at architecture - I need lesser "pushbacks" either because I have learnt to say the right thing or it has learnt to do the right thing - I do not know which one.

> Of course, this is good for brilliant engineers that never had the chance to get deep into the domain and now have better chances at getting a job, but it's also sad to think that other brilliant engineers that spent their lives collecting domain knowledge are now competing on the same lane.

If the author's vision of the future is correct, then competent software engineers are safe. Domain knowledge can be learnt much quicker than how to apply good engineering principles.

Engineers whose main competitive advantage is domain knowledge are probably not that brilliant at engineering. They might still find employment in other areas of the industry where they accumulated domain knowledge.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure we will get to all three of these pillars, probably by next year. I am not naive.

Whatever your feelings on the future of the industry are, it's hard to imagine you'll find more professional success in artisan woodworking than artisan software.

Where I work there’s already pressure to use Opus 4.7 less to save money, someone mentioned using a smaller model for “simple bug fixes”. This might work sometimes but how often do we really know it’s a simple bug fixe ahead of time? I suspect as costs go up we’ll see interest in using these tools to write “all the code” go down. As people migrate to cheaper and less effective models I suspect we’ll see the pressure to skip reviewing that code dissipate as well.

We’ll see where we land, maybe it won’t as dramatically different as the author of this post fears.

I just want to emphasise a point... Calculators give 100% correct answers and yet we still hire accountants; for the simple fact that we don't want all to be accountants.

People will hire software engineers for the simple fact that they do not want to be software engineers.

I have no idea how things will play out, but so far I am not worried because the amount of software continues to increase, and AI only accelerates that trend. This will require the same mental modeling, first principles thinking, and relentless curiosity that already formed the foundation of the software engineer skillset.

I see this as a negative, the whole once everyone has everything than everyone has nothing type of argument. The company I work for believes strongly in keeping humans in control and in the loop which is something I’m grateful for but at the same time who knows how long that will last. Companies are starting to get their AI bills and realizing how much this AI usage actually costs so only time will tell but I hope, for the sake of everyone, that those with the knowledge described in this article make effort to keep their brains in shape.

This is just how it is, and has always been in this industry. And it takes about 10 years to realize it.

When I started my career in software, businesses were still writing new code in COBOL. 10 years later those skills were pretty much useless, except for dwindling maintenance roles.

Then there was the client/server era. Then the web era. Then mobile. Then cloud, etc.

All the same functionality, written and re-written time and time again, using the latest popular stacks and methodologies.

I hope to be retiring in a few years and pretty much everything I have learned over nearly 40 years is no longer applicable or is at best losing relevancy to the way sofware is built today. And that's how it's always been.

Anything that can replace a deeply experienced s/ware engineer can replace anyone in the employment stack, meaning that only the owners of capital will be left, and they too will soon fade as the economy falls off a cliff and money has no value, because the only value that money has is the value of a human backing that, with thought, with ideas, with human output.

Whether you like it or not, "Economic output" is just a different phrase for "Human output that is valuable". When all human output is valued at the fractions of a penny per month of work, there is no future.

How is that true? I've been using Opus on an industry scale over last 6 months and this is just not real.

It has consistently with a certain percentage of chance each time (and no claude.md and skills do not stop it fully):

* Suggested to remove tests to allow for things to pass

* Suggested remove an error so that things can be "unblocked"

* Suggested to use a second path when the original path ran into problem instead of making the original path accomodate for that possibility.

* Suggested or silently added "features" or "guardrail" that I don't want.

* Can be left unsupervised only if given a goal that it can verify against itself. Without such clear goal (e.g. this test in the integration environment must be fixed), it flounders.

I'm not using just the native harness (e.g. CC) either, with additional, customized harness, the behavior improves somewhat but are still fundamentally constrained and cannot really be trusted without verification.

See my methodology (100% handwritten): https://aperocky.com/blog/post.html?slug=agentic-development....

Being a heavy user I think I've ran into every single hallucination that the model can do over development release and operations. I am still a heavy user but there are a lot of value in recognizing where exactly LLM's limit is and work around that.

It's the exact same story that we've heard countless times by now. Hosted on a blog with just a single post. Named in a way that suggests that said blog was created for this very single post.

What is there to learn from this other than LLMs seem to be bad for some people's psyches and that AI companies need these very stories to not get their funding shut down?

This reads like someone is trying to convince me, that ai is just this good, and that the author is telling me to use more ai.

To me this sounds like: Trust me, it’s really bad, i know what I’m talking about. Just lean into it, or change profession.

(Whether any one reading this, myself included, survives in the industry long enough to reach the other side of that transition is a different question.)

[EDIT] The reason I use books as an example is that 4.2 million books were published in 2025 (https://ideas.bkconnection.com/10-awful-truths-about-publish...); 3.5m self published (with most likely LLM assisted or wholly generated) and the remainder traditionally published. (That's ~9,600 new self-published books a day.) Who actually still sells enough copies to make money in this paradigm and why offers hints as to where the software industry is likely headed.

Current LLMs are still kind of shit at actually programming so many jobs do still care to have professional programmers. However, I think it's evident that if things stand where they are, employers will care to have far fewer of them, at least of highly paid highly experienced programmers. If this is the state we're in with LLM adoption when they can't help but create the same helper functions 15 times, god knows we're screwed.

So we should probably work on clearing out our debts and figuring out what else we might want to do with our time, I reckon.

I'm still going to try to do a good job. I'm still trying to learn the best effective ways to apply current LLMs (Right now I still prefer to mostly write code myself but have been using LLMs to bang code into shape via iterative code review; this is a way to exploit LLMs to make better code, especially applicable if your velocity was already good.)

Current transformer technology will either plateau or eventually we will get to that singularity bracket. (I was a skeptic once but all signs point there)

And this means models will eventually get better.

The main human value will be

- intent (we call the shots of why and what, AI will take care of the how)

- taste (everyone now immediately identifies Claude designed landing pages, they all look the same, taste changes with time, and can’t be predicted)

- supervision, both before and after AGI, to ensure no accidental damage, no misaligned decision drift, or in the unlikely but still statistically possible case of AI going rouge

Anything else (if we don’t plateau) can be eventually achieved.

Having that said, the fact AI can do it, doesn’t mean we’ll want AI to do it.

If there will be enough demand for handmade creations (with the current anti AI sentiment I can see it having an impact at least as similar to organic food) then we have some hope.

Programming, logic, etc are skills and toolkits. The optimal state of society is everybody being able to apply them, not just the enlightened compsci caste. There was a time in the past where scribes were paid nice cash for their efforts, too.

I guess the lesson to learn here is treating a toolkit as an identity and job for life. By virturee of the essence of the job itself - if the tool gets cheaper and more widespread, it's aactually success, not betrayal.

I recently had Cursor evaluate a huge code base that we took over. All public stuff, nothing scary security wise, but it was so convoluted that it was taking me forever to find the bugs. It was written by a person, I should add.

I did this in cursor and after one prompt using Plan, it found all the bugs, created a plan to fix them, it looked good, and I had the agent create the fix.

It took 30 minutes.

The client had this project in the hands of another company without ai tools and they couldn’t fix the bugs she told them about.

So my point is, if we are holding on to our jobs for dear life on the basis that “code quality” matters, you might as well kick down the 4th pillar. Like I said, the LLM does not care.

1) Train AI to replace human work. This gives you 50% quality for 10% cost. 2) Train AI to assist human workers. This gives you 200% quality for 110% cost.

Most companies will go with option 1, and it's a race to the bottom. Eventually, someone will go with option 2 and gather up all of the pieces and take over the market.

> LLMs are regression-to-the-mean machines--they pull junior developers up, and drag senior developers down. Taming them requires trading the romance of 'code as craft' for the physics of manufacturing.

The thing I don't know is: how do we decide which direction is most valuable? I can see arguments in both directions--quality vs quantity, essentially. I think there's a strong argument for the value of both:

- we need more quantity of software: for a long time, the ability to write software has been locked up, confined to a closed cabal of specialists

- we need more quality in software: we depend more and more on software in every aspect of our lives, mistakes are intolerable and should be avoided

Don’t sell yourself short! Taste is not promptable, I suspect good taste is AGI-complete.

Especially in domains like fintech, there is a lot of accumulated wisdom, and that is what you’ll be handsomely paid for (for at least the next couple years :/ )

For example, architectural patterns, when you need bitemporality, immutable logs, CQRS, all these good patterns that can only be learned by owning years of system architecture - none of these feedback loops are in the training set.

And from a product design side, agents will just miss key concepts and you need a few words to prompt a fix - but that might represent a massive tree search optimization, or the agent on many cases would just fail to identify the requirement. These small steers feel small, but by evaporation our work has distilled down to just the extremely high value insights.

METR task time is still at weeks, doubling every 7 months; it’s years (assuming we keep riding this crazy exponential) until you hit multi-year tasks. I don’t see wisdom / Métis being solved in 2027.

All this said - I think it’s important to extrapolate forwards, if the trend continues, this will may all be true in 3-5 years. Now is the time to pre-register what metrics would make you worried, so that you can define your red lines. There will be a rapid consolidation of power and wealth if these tools continue on their existing growth trajectory.

There's no mention of the functional elements of a software engineering role - incident response, working with auditors to define and maintain controls for internal services, handling escalated account support & fraud, working on DevEx, selling shovels (MCPing your consumer-facing APIs/services), getting on customer calls to help sell your company's X feature, managing people downwards and upwards.

The piece kinda reads like remorse over sunken costs and attachment of knowledge to personality. If you twiddle your thumbs and stay static in your role, you will be replaced. It's the differentiation that sets employees apart. And attaching yourself to functions instead of knowledge is the only way to stay afloat.

I have little to add to it, except that I agree completely. Not sure what’s next

I think the author downplays how much of that knowledge is used on knowing what to zoom in on, what to prompt, or what to look for.

Are we collectively in denial? It's understandable as the craft as we knew it is being disrupted by tools that have improved at an astonishing pace.

I also would point out that, while this thought has occurred to me about the skills being commoditized, in practice I don't see that everyone's getting the same results from the tools. Not sure what's going on but that's interesting.

In every case when I've shifted domains, the skills that have got me the job were demonstrable solid programming experience on a wide variety of systems, with only a tangential link to the new company's business. In each case, I've gone in knowing almost none of the domain knowledge, but it's never been a problem because the business analysts know that stuff and tell me what they want me to do, or it's been stuff I've been able to pick up in the first few months.

For example, when I switched to games development it was the combo of systems admin and web backend development that the company wanted, I actually used none of those skills in the first year doing what they hired me for, and pretty quickly I'd transitioned from that to become a rendering engineer, and I've now spent the majority of my career optimising shaders and game engines.

So for me, it's certainly the case that I value my adaptability across domains, and I'm not worried about having to shift to another business domain because I know I'll be able to produce whatever it is they want if there's a reasonable spec in place.

Sure, when hiring if you have 2 candidates - 1 with the exact domain knowledge you want, and 1 without, the one with domain knowledge has a head start, but in the case where nobody has that domain knowledge (or in the case of the article, it doesn't matter because AI levels the field), then I don't think it matters much. Personally, I'd rather be the person with the broadest skills and able to pick up what I need than to have been stuck doing the same thing my entire career.

It’s really unfortunate that AI hasn’t raised the ceiling on the space of possibilities as much as it’s raised the floor on how much can be automated, we’re all getting squeezed in the space between.

We will work for the robots, steering them to steer us.

I’ve saved up a couple of months of salary, have a couple of bootstrap ideas that I believe are within reach for me equipped with a coding agent to build. Hosting can be done almost for free. What used to take entire teams and hence millions of dollars to build can now be done a lot cheaper. If I’m lucky one of those ideas can pay my bills soon. If not I’ll go back to consulting for a couple of months.

Coding agents are driving up the value of architectural skills to the detriment of more specialized/technical skills.

Genuine question: what exactly is "quality"?

It's something I've been trying to understand for a very long time. It seems like it's entirely contextual, and it has both subjective and objective facets (the latter only for quantifiable things, and still entirely contextual).

I feel that I am faster and better, sure, but trusting self perception would be an absurd thing to do.

Is it really though? Access to information is quicker, but you still need to know what ‘good’ looks like to leverage it effectively. I can prompt my way to a medical diagnosis, but I’d still want to run it by a doctor.

I’m not planning on firing people, but I am planning on building more, using more tokens, and less app subscriptions.

One aspect of building that doesn’t erode is human values.

LLMs don’t create software with zero direction and although I do have 12 agents building constantly, I run out of attention to increase that to 100.

It seems like new tech is something most of us have to lie down and accept as the new reality each time it's invented, barring full-scale rioting. Much as with the Cold War.

Who sometimes has to deep dive & mentor a agent on solving the right problem.

If productivity is really getting better, regulation can force that productivity to go into increasing software quality.

"Maybe I should consider transforming my woodworking hobby into a profession."

As an AI optimist, I think all forced labor should eventually be done by AI. People can then spend their time pursuing their own hobbies. Just as many people still play Go after AlphaGo appeared, because they genuinely love the game.

In the future, coding may return to being an art form. People will no longer focus on utility alone, but instead on the enjoyment of the process of writing code itself.

Currently, LLMs are nothing more than amplification tools that require significant steering. If you think your job is mainly to take input from POs or managers, translate it into if/else statements and loops, and review PRs, then you never really understood your role. Software engineering—for those who went to university and studied it—is fundamentally about complexity management and cognitive automation. People in the field, or at least those with some math background who studied software engineering properly, understand that it's all about managing complexity; current tools are nowhere near replacing a software engineer. What they call "taste" is imagination, creativity, embodiment, a more intuitive understanding of context, and yes, superior intelligence compared to current AI. However, AI and LLMs are excellent at mechanical work and mimicking human intelligence, so use them for what they are, and stop whining.

Going forward, the world is ever-growing in complexity, and automation will become widespread everywhere. LLMs just unlocked another level. So basically, cognitive work will be automated—perhaps up to 90%—until the next breakthrough (if ever). You can sit and cry, or you can learn the tools and help shape the future.

Software engineers can automate the entire economy now, including the executives, yet they just sit there whining and crying. This is a self-esteem, confidence, and identity issue more than anything else.

I think that in a product-centric or mission-centric perspective, effective automation is good, because it frees you up to do other important things. E.g., in gardening, time spent weeding, is time not spent surviving slug armageddon.

I don’t think the data really supports this? Last I checked at least.

The ability to orchestrate intelligence is a magnificent power that few have, and while barriers to entry will be eroded, it will take time and they won't be eroded fully. This is your edge.

why would i ever want to use a tool that remove the part of my job that brings me joy? Fuck productivity, we were already doing good, when we were able to actually do our job, i.e.: not wasting hours in useless meetings, or doing customer care to idiots who could not be bothered to follow instructions, which i shouldn't be doing in the first place. let the LLM do that, or let the human assisted by the LLM do that. Not my job.

All the other white collar workers are in the same boat. A pillar of the economy is going to be destroyed with no obvious replacement in sight.

I feel like many of my peers are beating around the bush on this topic and in denial. Even if you accept it can do a large portion of the technical part of our work, we are just supervisors at this point making sure it doesn't do any stupid shit. What is the point? Where is the fun in this? Where is the challenge? At least I have enjoyed building my career over the last 20+ years and building software, but find little joy in the work I'm doing now.

I think we're going to see a massive exodus of folks leaving the profession and a huge mental health crisis, long before the folks working in other sectors realise what's hit them.

[1] https://deanclatworthy.com/2026/02/09/the-joy-of-programming...

You're wrong there. You are capable of judging the outcome of the llm.

> But I don't know what to think about the long-term.

Don't you think it all has taken long enough. When I look back at the beginning of my career and compare what we do now ... I cannot shake the feeling we're essentially still solving he same problems and we have accepted that as being normal. Complexity skyrocketed, (abstraction) layers got added but the needle didn't move exponentially together with that. I think the IT industry as a whole gets what it deserves, thinking that we would remain the maze masters of the mazes we create.

> Maybe I should consider transforming my woodworking hobby into a profession...

I'm looking for 8 (affordable) oak panel doors with the exact same measurements as my current doors so I can replace them. That shouldn't be too hard to find you'd think right?

Look at prompt engineering, and how quickly it became a hot thing. Does everyone know to steer their AI well? There's only so much a harness can do for you once you start attempting to one shot with a single sentence of 4 words.

As others said, "write a Rust compiler make no mistakes" can only work if you overfit a harness to that single prompt. Nobody is going to do that.

So the part you mentioned about the knowledge you accumulated around how to know that "trade-offs between implementations" and "idempotency to prevent double-charges" is just moving to the domain of the english language and tokenizers. One could argue here that this is far more interesting as it requires you to explore deeper into how we communicate and describe the world around us. Reminds me of physics and math.

I think there's an optimism lenses to it if you can grasp it as an opportunity rather than an inevitable doomsday apocalypse.

It's harsh but nobody cares if a model or a human made a system.

The "good" bits are that now automating anything and providing value from software is much easier. If I have an idea or a nitpick somewhere, I can just do it, up to a limit (which is quickly rising).

I have always been a generalist and generally interested in a very wide array of things, and this period has been the most exciting in my engineering career (13y now). Learning about anything is so frictionless, looking back at my first learning experience - picking up a fat C++ book and spending days/weeks debugging, while I can romanticize that, I would never go back.

I can also now write software solo or with an extremely small team at a huge scale in comparison, and that is super exciting.

A lot of skills that took sleepless nights to acquire, they are "gone", but I still don't regret anything or wouldn't go back. Their "usefulness" has degraded, true, but this has always been the case with engineering.

We are now able to spend much more time thinking about utility rather than low level implementation and imo that's great.

We have many challenges ahead of us, and there are seriously bad things, the biggest one I have experienced is the hours are increasing and mental load is vastly increasing as well. As capacity, speed and leverage increases, so do expectations and hours, and that is probably a social problem.

Sorry for the unstructured stream of thoughts, and this is just an opinion (quite an unpopular one I believe), I hope your distress decays away for a new excitement and new opportunities.

Thanks for the article .

I thought about going back to college, learning Math, Statistics, advanced Machine Learning and applying for research role at a frontier lab.

That's a super silly take. As much as I did math and even course on machine learning back in the days and I was making basic perceptron in code at university - to get back and be able to do so on frontier level that's years I don't have anymore.

Anthropic is doing all that also with their LLMs so that ship sailed.

Big thing is — business people are not going to spend time prompting LLM to make an application. If they do then they will become "programmers" and we all (experienced developers) know — you touch it you own it — they (business) will not bother running or taking responsibility.

Right now on r/sysadmin there was bunch of posts where admins have "vibe coded apps" requested to be "productionized". Those business types requesting don't know yet — you touch it you own it — they think they can vibe code app drop it at ops and it is all fun and games. When people will start requesting features, start nagging about bugs, start cursing on whatever changes they introduced it will be back to "hey maybe we will just get someone to do that for us".

  You might not need as deep software dev knowledge but with deep software dev knowledge you still will be faster operating LLM to build systems than non-dev

Nobody wants to think anymore. Coworkers are now just intermediaries for their LLMs. Talking to them is just talking to the LLM - sometimes directly copied and pasted, sometimes minimal effort to conceal what they’re doing. It is so disheartening.

And the sad part is, LLMs are incredible and can enable you to do much better work if you can stay in the loop, and stop focusing only on shipping speed. But from what I have observed, very few people care to do this. Who cares about substance when middle management thinks your productivity is 10x?

I've shared a story before that between now and 2 years ago a developer who solely relied on AI has produced the same hot garbage instancing system within the same time period. For example back in my day in 2 years I went from writing a system that struggled with few hundred players to one that could handle thousands and far beyond that. The person using AI 2 years ago wrote a system that didn't work and wrote a system 3 months ago that doesn't work.

Everyone is saying how great AI is, but they're missing that the driver is just as important AI wouldn't be able to achieve any of this without capable (often seniors) using it and giving it guidance. It's really a difference between "it works" and "it works without flaws".

Of course AI can produce things that also "work without flaws" with solved problems and someone "recreating" something that already exists with AI is not that special, a junior developer could accomplish the same thing given the time.

But I do agree that AI becoming part of performance reviews and all that is producing more productive developers which is going to drive the cost way down. In a way AI is stealing from a developers salary and giving it to the AI companies which is pretty ironic considering how cold developers seem towards artists.

This here is the crux of it I think… it’s often promoted that AI will give us the time to do the “real” engineering work of designing systems and really serving the user, but in practice all I’ve seen is further attempts at optimizing every last process with AI - just homogenizing every product and feature into slop.

It feels like every leader has been to some talking points boot camp where they’re incentivized to apply pressure to every part of their process - sort of a desperate attempt to justify the costs they’re incurring. I think we will look back at this and see how obviously short sighted it was.

If you’re not a good engineer and you don’t have the domain knowledge, your token costs will be very high for whatever gets shipped, because you won’t be able to provide the context necessary to prompt machine efficiently.

Claude will still very often hallucinate bugs, explanations, domain requirements, that have no basis in reality. It will offer fixes and improvements that are pretty standard but not optimal. This is correctable if you catch it, but you need to review every line of code and comment, because in addition to being obviously wrong, it is often very subtle in the wrongness. For every bit of “slop” there is almost microslop, the places where it just kind of confidently guesses… and doesn’t tell you… but sometimes is correct anyway.

The “problem” is there’s less low hanging fruit. You have to know a lot to add value beyond being a middleman gating the slop. You have to really pay attention to the details to find some of the errors that it’s making.

It's still funny that 4 years into this mania the models can hallucinate basic ground truths, humans are increasingly not reviewing the output, and misusing LLMs where simple automation would suffice.

My wife does project management and works with a lot of tech leads. They came to her with a project plan deck, and she started questioning some weird dates.

The LLM was able to pull artifacts out of their issuer tracker, but it just.. hallucinated some of the dates in the process of creating a project plan deck out of the underlying data. These guys didn't care to review and notice, and who knows what else it hallucinated content wise. They were happy to send this project plan multiple levels up the food chain with hallucinated unreviewed dates.

5 years ago they would have just written a script and had none of this mess.

Ownership and responsibility are the new currency for the engineering staff. Willingness to implement these tools and then own the consequences of their use is what leadership is looking for. They want their cake while they eat cake, and they will keep those around who enable something approaching that experience. Owning the side effects of LLM use is more challenging than our own natural output because of the radical volume increase and unfamiliarity with low level details. However, I argue it is still possible. It has always been significantly more expedient to poke holes in someone (something) else's work than it is to perform that same work. And, the executives know this. They leverage this capability too.

The relationship between the business and the development team has been tenuous at best. I've rarely seen a technology team that was properly subservient to the business that ultimately signed their paychecks. I every case I have personally experienced, it is was like a hostage situation where the business owners are in constant terror of the technology people screwing them over in some infinitely nuanced way they or their lawyers could never understand. Many business owners are looking at this technology as a way out of the hostage situation. They noticed a window that was left unlocked. They are going for it right now. Whether or not they will succeed in their escape is a separate matter. Whether or not them being held hostage was justified is also a separate matter. It really helps to keep these things in their own lanes.

That said, Opus 4.8 and Codex 5.5 both can write code that is higher quality than your average engineer. They are not quite there yet in terms of code re-use, but I think that's a solvable problem.

We won't miss them

That's the hard truth.

Governments do dot care on our future, only on who pays them. This is the tragedy.

'Maybe I should consider woodworking' - Fuck off.

I’ve lately just turned to having Claude do a quick /review, spot checking it, doing my own review and the. firing up some web agents to make the needed changes and just ignoring the back and forth because they don’t give a fuck anyway.

Just waiting for someone to notice and ask the obvious question at this point.

Constant use of AI will probably erode that knowledge over time just because of not practising it, but successful use in complex domain needs the domain knowledge to steer it away from icebergs or hallucination or model flaws.

But that’s not the real goal, is it? The goal is to inflate the stock value, take the cream off the top, and dump the whole business on the pension funds, maybe creating a too-big-to-fail scenario where the government steps in an bails out the industry as with the airlines during Covid.

This is why all the testimonials and narratives are so suspect - nobody knows what fraction of online posts were created simply to sell the narrative that LLMs are this incredible disruptive tool that will change the world, solely in order to create FOMO in the investor class.

In this particular case, I’d like to see links to samples of LLM created codebases for “PCI compliance, double-entry ledgers, escrows, reconciliation, payment lifecycles, bank transfer idempotency”. It should be easy to put an open-source LLM-generated version up on github, right? And if not, why not?

Agents merely accelerate and equalize the playing field. And they cost money. We might be a dying breed, but we are the best operators of this technology. And if we want it, this is our moment.

Yes, get into wood working.

LLMs have made domain knowledge and reasoning "cheap"; it doesn't matter if the output is lower quality - look around you for countless examples of where cheap wins and "cheap" continues to improve.

Good luck out there; we will all need it.

My challenge is seeking good resources for the business skills. I'm doing sales for a passion project for the first time, and it's teaching me a lot. I'm just confused still on why it feels so hard and why I can't find an easier way.

You’ve already faced this the entire time with… libraries on github.

If employers knew how much you can just use a new standard library, or ask you to “use React”, that’s a lot like asking you to use an LLM to speed things up. You also benefit from the collective wisdom of a lot of people. Do you write assembly or pixel shaders by hand?

Let me just say AI is not nearly as good as the billions of dollars in marketing spend say.

We are months away from catastrophic bed shitting and the tech industry will pay the piper.

Besides, you can look at the websites/apps/software you use everyday and evaluate whether or not the agentic era has produced better results. Personally, there's still plenty of bugs and annoyances. Banks still using SMS 2FA, library breakages in minor version bumps, inconsistent UIs between web and mobile, etc.

If all that was a hurdle before... because humans, regulations, or something else... then surely these magical machines that can supposedly replace us and do it much faster would've handled it by now? And they wouldn't introduce more bugs[0], would they? ;)

0: https://www.0xsid.com/blog/meta-account-takeover-fiasco

Lots of jobs have been automated away and careers based on those jobs faded away in history. Maybe in near future there won’t be a ton of opportunities for software engineers in the traditional form. I’m also embracing for that future.

There were people called calculators that did manual calculations in the past. There were people hand weaving all the fabric. There were people painting cars in the factory. All those jobs are gone for the most part.

We are sitting here portending there is going to be demand for software engineers managing those engineer robots but let’s be real. The demand for software is not increasing at the rate software engineering is becoming efficient using those robots. Some (many) of us have to find new careers.

This is interesting because in my field of VC everyone says generalists are dying.

It's crazy the crazed anti-AI people yelling with foam with their mouth that it's useless, meanwhile Claude for me at work oneshots complex bugs in a massive project with a 95% success rate. And the customer happiness survey has never been as good as it's now btw

Yeah. There is no future in IT any more, let's be real. Enough CEOs have drunk so much AI kool-aid that they'll lay off so many people it will become outright impossible to get re-hired again when the incompetent CEOs have gotten fired - too much competition.

The only industry that's going to give reliable employment in the future is the trades, especially the regulated/licensed ones. Gas, water, electricity, structural engineers - basically everything where there is actual human lives on the line when things go south.

It’s not useless, at least not yet. And the fact that you recognize this puts you way ahead of the typical HN user constantly crying about how AI could never

What’s going to make you a good AI-augmented engineer is going to be treating AI like a good partner

Not like a genius, not like an idiot - these are extremes where all the memes on LinkedIn are generated

Like any partnership you will see it comes with bad ideas and good ideas - that it will challenge your own ideas and be sometimes wrong and sometimes right

Approaching it this way, I think my learnings only accelerated - the conversation is of much higher value because it’s a fast back and forth where I can take a moment to learn on those occasions where its ideas beat mine

You are feeling a little insecure, paranoid is not the word, and that’s a good thing

Tackle the problem for what it is: I have this sidekick now that can help me bang shit out in a fraction of the time it used to

Use the the brain that got you here to figure that out - don’t waste your time on these debating whether ai is good or not or listening to stories about how it’s stupid because one time it suggested something that wrong

You’re going to be fine, put AI to work for you

Ask me again in a few months but for now you’re fine

:-(

I've said this in other threads, but it concerns me how little the average person is preparing for what's coming right now... It seems people are making decisions as if their jobs and income are safe when in reality their entire profession could be gone in less than a decade. People in this comment thread saying crap like "yea, but the code LLMs write still isn't that good by my standards" are totally missing the trend. The fact LLMs are even one-shotting extremely technically difficult problems was something almost no one thought they'd be able to do by now a couple of years ago. Even I as someone who pushed back against this and thought they would become extremely competent within years am genuinely amazed at just how good they are. Trust me, regardless of your opinions, your job and career is at risk.

Another thing to understand is that if AI replaces workers in a variety of fields from SWE, accounting, customer support, graphic design, etc. Then it's likely going to be hard to fine other jobs to pivot into because when unemployment increases that significantly everyone will competing for the same limited number of jobs. Some will fine something, but most will struggle to find anything.

I hear a lot of people talking about how they'll just go into 'x' field if AI comes for their job, but realistically you'll need years of reskilling and you're assuming that in a world where other people are also losing their jobs, and where AI is touching ever more forms of work, that you'll easily be able to get a job in that other field. And I'm not saying that won't happen, just that this isn't as realistic or as safe of a bet as some people seem to think it is. You're also likely deluded about how hard it is to find work because you've been in software for the last decade.

Please, please, please, start preparing for what's coming. The economy is going to get extremely rough over the next 10 years. You need to be prepared to be without income for years, if not indefinitely.

Usually when a human self deludes they do it when they're identity is under threat. People would rather hold on to identity then face the truth at the cost of their identity. That is what is going on in almost every HN thread that has to do with this topic.

A good example is religion. Someone who is intelligent, but born into a religion, will have a hard time giving up that religion EVEN when presented with logical/rational/realistic arguments for why that religion is false. They will rationalize the most convenient reasoning to maintain their own identity.

I mean think about it. Even the concept of religion is obviously false. It's not science, it talks about phantasmic beings that OBVIOUSLY don't exist. It's inconsistent among different groups as in there's thousands of religions in the world and nobody thinks the obvious of the fact that if only religion can be correct, then most of the world is fundamentally believing a total lie.

Anyway, the same thing is happening with AI. AI is eroding our identity as software engineers. So you'll see rationalizations in this thread in attempt to protect that identity. The biggest excuse is LLMs are hallucinate and are often wrong and fortunately for humans... this rationalization still works because it's still very true.

However what people are not mentioning is the obvious. People are avoiding it because they are delusional. The topic of this thread is "erosion" of "software engineering career" AND that is utterly true. ADDITIONALLY the error rate of LLMs have been going down. AI in general is improving. The erosion is real and obvious.

But you will see here on this thread that people are not talking about the erosion. They are holding on to the one last rationalization that is a differentiator without ever thinking about how that differentiator is "eroding" even though "erosion" is the LITERAL topic of the conversation.

For one: LLMs make a lot of mistakes. We all see that when they hallucinate search results and what not. But, possibly even more important than that, you ultimately become dependent on some big company via LLMs. Perhaps that trade-off is worth it for some companies, but I personally don't want to become dependent on these companies. I actually consider it a hostile attack from the USA, and under Trump this is even more obvious.

Another thing that sucks by LLMs is documentation. They generate a lot of crap that is useless. So that's another area where humans could be better.

Admittedly a lot of vibe-coded AI slop is also useful in some ways, but it has started to make me rather angry in general - youtube already spoiled me here. I no longer want to see ANY AI videos at all whatsoever. It just wastes my time. I am not here to empower skynet version 20.2.