Is the purpose of this article to say "If you only do one thing, you will likely not excel at other things"? Is there anyone to which this is not an obvious conclusion? Did I miss the point?
Totally agree. Especially for commercial or code that adds value. Writing code is just one element of developing quality, robust, software. In the rea world, commercial or production software must be maintained, supported, and must respond to changing user requirements. The human element is critical, unless you’re OK with relying on LLM’s, crossing your fingers, and have no care to support users.
I think you'd have to start with 55+ years old and go upward to find an age range where more than 10% of programmers routinely wrote assembler code in their careers.
To find the same for machine code you'd need to start at 65 or older.
One great opportunity is for expert-developers to push the boundary of better algorithms or libraries. No one rolls out their own cryptographic library, majority problems faced in our systems are common. If that common problem is solved once and packaged into a library to be used by anyone, no one else needs to bother looking at it. Most of modern software dev is all about plumbing. The harder parts need to solved once and that solution becomes available to everyone immediately.
Yeah but in my opinion AI generated code is still pretty low to mid quality and can't push boundaries.
And as people rely more on it they sort of forget how to have unique ideas too.
Practicing code specifically is one of many options for engineers right now. How about other skills? For example, now seems like a good opportunity to start developing deep knowledge in a particular domain, so that when you build AI assisted software in that space, you’re competent enough to know if it’s doing the right thing. Or, develop a better understanding of a range of disciplines, so that when you go to solve problems, you’re aware of them and have more areas to draw from. (The combination is what Valve calls a T-shaped employee I believe.) Also a good opportunity to develop your interpersonal skills.
> The combination is what Valve calls a T-shaped employee I believe
For what it's worth, I've heard this at jobs before, and I've never worked at Valve (or as far as I'm aware with anyone who worked at Valve previously). I think it's probably more common than just something they say.
I know brain atrophy is mentioned a lot these days. But is anyone worried about early onset dementia? If we see a higher number of younger dementia patients needing care in the next few decades, once again it will be the next generation who will bear the burden just so the current generation can do the "lulz". Jesus tap-dancing Christ the job wasn't even that hard in the first place.
I don't know, when I started out as a web developer I met a hardcore C developer once and I was quite impressed about his low level knowledge, and wanted to eventually learn that too. But as time passed by the web world kept developping and becoming more interesting and eventually I want to make applications in the end. A few years later I saw the guy again and he told me he got into Ruby on Rails businesses, because there was a lot of work in there.
> Once you try the models, you realise how good they are, and there is the second incentive. These things write working code and as the models get better and better, the argument that they make mistakes will get quieter and quieter until it fades away, like all high conviction opinions that turn out to be wrong over time do.
Is this true though? Will the models get better and better? I'm not a hater, but Sonnet/Opus generates terrible code albeit mostly functioning code.
While I agree with the outcome, I don't agree with reasoning. What really matters for larger projects isn't how quickly you can write code, but how easy it is to understand the code and the architecture to those modifying the specific part. And this is where exclusively relying on LLMs is a disservice to you in the end — while they are good at generating _plausibly looking_ code, it's typically quite flawed, but in a non-obvious way, which is often hard to catch even for senior engineers. Thus for longer term it's actually beneficial to write most of the critical code by hand, and only leave less important stuff to LLMs. What percentage should be left to LLMs highly varies between projects, so there is no single good number.
This article forgot the strongest argument for hand writing your code. When the process is done, you understand it at a depth far beyond any vibe coder who created the same thing
I think for a lot of people, the truth is they wanted an excuse to stop writing code and LLMs gave it to them. That's why the shift has been so violent and abrupt. The majority found what they were looking for. No appeal to logic or reason as to why total submission to the machine is a bad thing will register.
Now is the time to practice following a horse pulling a plough, because soon all the other farm hands will forget the nuances of handling a plough manually and your skills will be sought after by those who want you to drive a tractor. Wait, what?
21 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 48.0 ms ] threadhttps://www.rxjourney.net/how-artificial-intelligence-ai-is-...
To find the same for machine code you'd need to start at 65 or older.
Coding gives the edge in creativity
All these things (code, prose, sketching) are about thinking through making.
For what it's worth, I've heard this at jobs before, and I've never worked at Valve (or as far as I'm aware with anyone who worked at Valve previously). I think it's probably more common than just something they say.
Is this true though? Will the models get better and better? I'm not a hater, but Sonnet/Opus generates terrible code albeit mostly functioning code.