As much as I support community developed software and "free as in freedom", "Open Source" got completely perverted into tricking people to work for free for huge financial benefits for others. Your comment is just one example of that.

For that reason all my silly little side projects are now in private repos. I dont care the chance somebody builds a business around them is slim to none. Dont think putting a license will protect you either. You'd have to know somebody is violating your license before you can even think about doing anything and that's basically impossible if it gets ripped into a private codebase and isnt obvious externally.

> Does this mean people will be less incentivized to contribute to open source as time goes by?

personally, I completely stopped 2 years ago

it's the same as the stack overflow problem: the incentive to contribute tends towards zero, at which point the plagiarism machine stops improving

> P.S., I think the current trend is a wakeup call to us software engineers. We thought we were doing highly creative work, but in reality we spend a lot of time doing the basic job of knowledge workers: retrieving knowledge and interpolating some basic and highly predictable variations. Unfortunately, the current AI is really good at replacing this type of work.

Most of the waking hours of most creative work have this type of drudgery. Professional painters and designers spend most of their time replicating ideas that are well fleshed-out. Musicians spend most of their time rehearsing existing compositions.

There is a point to be made that these repetitive tasks are a prerequisite to come up with creative ideas.

Now do open science.

More generally, specialty knowledge is valuable. From now on, all employees will be monitored in order to replace them.

> Does this mean people will be less incentivized to contribute to open source as time goes by?

Yes. I certainly don't intend to put any free code online until I can legally bar AI bros from using it without payment. As Mike Monteiro put it long ago, "F** you, pay me" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVkLVRt6c1U)

> doing the basic job of knowledge workers

If you extrapolate and generalize further... what is at risk is any task that involves taking information input (text, audio, images, video, etc.), and applying it to create some information output or perform some action which is useful.

That's basically the definition of work. It's not just knowledge work, it's literally any work.

In my experience, it still does take quite a bit of time (minutes) to run a task on these agentic LLMs (especially with the latest reasoning models), and in Cursor / Cline / other code editor versions of AI, it's enough time for you to get distracted, lose context, and start working on another task.

So the benefit is really that during this "down" time, you can do multiple useful things in parallel. Previously, our engineers were waiting on the Cursor agent to finish, but the parallelization means you're explicitly turning your brain off of one task and moving on to a different task.

A single response can take a few seconds, but tasks with agentic flows can be dozens of back and forths. I've had a fairly complicated Roo Code task take 10 minutes (multiple subtasks).

> Each task is processed independently in a separate, isolated environment preloaded with your codebase. Codex can read and edit files, as well as run commands including test harnesses, linters, and type checkers. Task completion typically takes between 1 and 30 minutes, depending on complexity, and you can monitor Codex’s progress in real time.

They wrote "You still need to do a lot of work to get it production ready". So I would say it's not much better than real colleagues. Especially since junior devs will improve to a point they don't need your hand holding (remember you also were a junior at some point), which is not proven will happen with AI tools.

You don't need to be nice to your virtual junior devs. Saves quite a lot time too.

As long as I spend less time reviewing and guiding than doing it myself it's a win for me. I don't have any fun doing these things and I'd rather yelling at a bunch of "agents". For those who enjoy doing bunch of small edits I guess it's the opposite.

Post realizing CC can operate same code base, same file tree on different terminals instances, it's been a significant unlock for us. Most devs have 3 running concurrently. 1. master task list + checks for completion on tasks. 2. operating on current task + documentation. 3. side quests, bugs, additional context.

rinse and repeat once task done, update #1 and cycle again. Add in another CC window if need more tasks concurrently.

downside is cost but if not an issue, it's great for getting stuff done across distributed teams..

it sounds like their approach is launch 5 with the same task and hopefully one works it out.

Is Zed managing the containerized dev environments, or creating multiple worktrees or anything like that? Or are they all sharing the same work tree?

Seems likely that they are waiting to release o4 full results until the gpt-5 release later this year, presumably because gpt-5 is bundled with a roughly o4 level reasoning capability, and they want gpt-5 to feel like a significant release.

Hiring of juniors is basically dead these days and it has been like this for about 10 years and I hate it. I remember when I was a junior in 2014 there were actually startups who would hire cohorts of juniors (like 10 at a time, fresh out of CS degree sort of folks with almost no applied coding experience) and then train them up to senior for a few years, and then a small number will stay and the rest will go elsewhere and the company will hire their next batch of juniors. Now no one does this, everyone wants a senior no matter how simple the task. This has caused everyone in the industry to stuff their resume, so you end up in a situation where companies are looking for 10 years of experience in ecosystems that are only 5 years old.

That said, back in the early 00s there was much more of a culture of everyone is expected to be self-taught and doing real web dev probably before they even get to college, so by the time they graduate they are in reality quite senior. This was true for me and a lot of my friends, but I feel like these days there are many CS grads who haven't done a lot of applied stuff. But at the same time, to be fair, this was a way easier task in the early 00s because if you knew JS/HTML/CSS/SQL, C++ and maybe some .NET language that was pretty much it you could do everything (there were virtually no frameworks), now there are thousands of frameworks and languages and ecosystems and you could spend 5+ years learning any one of them. It is no longer possible for one person to learn all of tech, people are much more specialized these days.

But I agree that eventually someone is going to have to start hiring juniors again or there will be no seniors.

This is a bit of a game theory problem. "Training senior engineers" is an expensive and thankless task: you bear essentially all the cost, and most of the total benefit accrues to others as a positive externality. Griping at companies that they should undertake to provide this positive externality isn't really a constructive solution.

I think some people are betting on the fact that AI can replace junior devs in 2-5 years and seniors in 10-20, when the old ones are largely gone. But that's sort of beside the point as far as most corporate decision-making.

To be clear, we still hire engineers who are early in their careers (and we've found them to be some of the best folks on our team).

All the same principles apply as before: smart, driven, high ownership engineers make a huge difference to a company's success, and I find that the trend is even stronger now than before because of all the tools that these early career engineers have access to. Many of the folks we've hired have been able to spin up on our codebase much faster than in the past.

We're mainly helping them develop taste for what good code / good practices look like.

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

Unfortunately this is not how companies think. I read somewhere more than 20 years ago about outsourcing and manufacturing offshoring. The author basically asked the same: if we move out the so-called low-end jobs, where do we think we will get the senior engineers? Yet companies continued offshoring, and the western lost talent and know-how, while watching our competitor you-know-who become the world leader in increasingly more industries.

I don't think jobs are necessarily a good plan at all anymore. Figure out how to leverage AIs and robots as cheap labor, and sell services or products. But if someone is trying to get a job, I get the impression that networking helps more than anything.

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

I know this isn't what you want to hear, but what makes you think senior engineers will be in short supply in "the future"?

I'm not even a developer (anymore, I was in the past), I'm a product manager, and I'm pretty sure I can see the point in a few years where not just developers but people like me get disintermediated. My customers have a semi-reasonable grasp of what they're looking for, and they can speak. In a few years -- ten at the absolute most -- my customers will say to an AI, "I need an application that does XYZ" and the AI will reply, "Are you sure about that? Most people who say they need XYZ end up using an app that does WXY." My (former) users will reply, "Let's try it my way and see what happens." And the AI will say, "Okay, here are three popular UI styles, which do you prefer?" etc. etc.

We're headed for Interesting Times.

I think the bigger problem, that started around 2022 is much lower volume of jobs in software development. Projects were shutdown, funding was retracted, even the big wave of migrations to the cloud died down.

Today startups mostly wrap LLMs as this is what VCs expect. Larger companies have smaller IT budgets than before (adjusted for inflation). This is the real problem that causes the jobs shortage.

I guess the industry leaders think we'll not need senior engineers either as capabilities evolve.

But also, I think this underestimates significantly what junior engineers do. Junior engineers are people who have spent 4 to 6 years receiving a specialised education in a university - and they normally need to be already good at school math. All they lack is experience applying this education on a job - but they are professionals - educated, proactive and mostly smart.

The market is tough indeed, and as much it is tough for a senior engineer like myself, I don't envy the current cohort of fresh grads. It being tough is only tangentially related to the AI though. Main factor is the general economic slowdown, with AI contributing by distracting already scarce investment from non-AI companies and producing a lot of uncertainty in how many and what employees companies will need in the future. Their current capabilities are nowhere near to having a real economic impact.

Wish your kid and you a lot of patience, grit and luck.

Same, mine is about to graduate with a CS masters from a great school. Couldn't get any internships, and is now incredibly negative about ever being able to find work, which doesn't help. We're pretty much looking at minimum wage jobs doing tech support for NGOs at this point (and the current wave of funding cuts from Federal government for those kind of orgs is certainly not going to help with that).

Your kid with a set of AI’s is going to blow the greybeards out of the water in a few years. They learn and iterate a lot faster. They just accept the latest tech as a given.

- greybeard who is trying his hardest to keep up

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

Cynical answer for the immediate future: maybe from the pool of existing seniors and principals that have all been stuck doing a faux-management job onboarding, mentoring and managing the juniors who were the only ones actually writing any code in many tech companies? It's a reversal of a trend, for sure: my feeling about the market until the last year or two, was that there's hardly any job for seniors or above, that isn't just management without the title and its privileges.

Past the immediate future, if we end up replacing juniors with LLMs, then the next cohort of "seniors" will need to come from some kind of vocational training.

A junior engineer can always become a senior engineer by using Gemini/ChatGPT to build full systems and literally asking chatGPT, a series of Why questions to every output.

In fact not being bottle necked by senior engineers or not having to drawe the luck of a bad senior engineer/mentor, there will be a new stars of Junior engineers.

What you should be worried is Senior Engineers who hate AI

Being quite blunt, just a cs degree from a good school has not been enough for quite some time. Research experience, OSS contribs, some specialty (ML, compilers, ...) are a must. I don't find this to be a problem, since it dilutes the value of an ivy league education.

On top of that, you need to be really sharp at leetcode for any large-ish company.

I find the "ai tools are junior engineers" narrative flawed, but it has any way accelerated the higher and higher expectations for a junior.

I feel for your daughter. I can totally see how tools like this will destroy the junior job market.

But I also wonder (I'm thinking out loud here, so pardon the raw unfiltered thoughts), if being a junior today is unrecognizable.

Like for example, that whatever a "junior" will be now, will have to get better at thinking at a higher level, rather than the minute that we did as juniors (like design patterns and all that stuff).

So maybe the levels of abstraction change?

Don't shoot the messenger. He's just sharing his experience with the tool and using an anecdotal example.

Graduating as a junior is just not enough in a more competitive market like there is now. I don’t think it is related to anything else. If you can hire a developer that is spending 10x time coding or a developer that has studied and graduated, this is not much of a choice. If you don’t have the option than you might go with a junior

By the rate at which these things advance I would say the "Seniors" will come from there too. We are transforming into architects or going at higher levels at least. Teach your kids to be better architects instead, code is dying. My 2c at least

I share your worries, but the time horizon for the supply of senior engineers drying up is just too long for companies to care at this time, in particular if productivity keeps increasing. And it’s completely unclear what the state of the art will be in 20 years; the problem might mostly solve itself.

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers..., where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

This problem might be new to CS, but has happened to other engineers, notably to MechE in the 90's, ChemE in 80's, Aerospace in 70's, etc... due to rapid pace of automation and product commoditization.

The senior jobs will disappear too, or offshored to a developing country: Exxon (India 152 - 78 US) https://jobs.exxonmobil.com/ Chevron (India 159 - 4 US) https://careers.chevron.com/search-jobs

The junior engineers on my team are just supercharged and their job is different from when I was a junior engineer.

I would say: ten years ago there was a huge shortage of engineers. Today, there is still lots of coding to be done, but everyone is writing code much faster and driven people learn to code to solve their own problems

Part of the reason it was so easy to get hired as a junior ten years ago was because there was so much to do. There will still be demand for engineers for a little while and then it's possible we will all be creating fairly bespoke apps and I'm not sure old me would call what future me does "programming".

It's worth keeping in mind that we're probably in a recession at the moment, due to US Executive policies which the tech industry largely disagrees with, and over which it has little influence.

AI might play a role here. But there's also a lot of economic uncertainty.

It's not long ago when the correction of the tech job market started, because it got blown up during and after covid. The geopolitical situation is very unstable.

I also think there is way too much FUD around AI, including coding assistants, than necessary. Typically coming either from people who want to sell it or want to get in on the hype.

Things are shifting and moving, which creates uncertainty. But it also opens new doors. Maybe it's a time for risk takers, the curious, the daring. Small businesses and new kinds of services might rise from this, like web development came out of the internet revolution. To me, it seems like things are opening up and not closing down.

Besides that, I bet there are more people today who write, read or otherwise deal directly with assembly code than ever before, even though we had higher level languages for many decades.

As for the job market specifically: SWE and CS (adjacent) jobs are still among the fastest growing, coming up in all kinds of lists.

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

Hasn't this been a common refrain whenever someone found a way to automate any menial task in any job?

> It seems that, relatively speaking, there's a lot of postings for senior engineers and very little for new grads.

That's been the case for most of the last 15 years in my experience. You have to follow local job markets, get in through an internship, or walk in at local companies and ask. Applying en mass can also help, and so does having some code on GitHub to show off.

i think there's an opportunity here

a lot of junior eng tasks don't really help you become a senior engineer. someone needs to make a form and a backend API for it to talk to, because it's a business need. but doing 50 of those doesn't really impart a lot of wisdom

same with writing tests. you'll probably get faster at writing tests, but that's about it. knowing that you need the tests, and what kinds of things might go wrong, is the senior engineer skill

with the LLMs current ability to help people research a topic, and their growing ability to write functioning code, my hunch is that people with the time to spare can learn senior engineer skills while bypassing being a junior engineer

convincing management of that is another story, though. if you can't afford to do unpaid self-directed study, it's probably going to be a bumpy road until industry figures out how to not eat the seed corn

We have seen this in other industries and professions.

As everything is so new and different at this stage we are in a state of discovery which requires more senior skills to work out the lay of the land.

As we progress, create new procedures, processes, and practices, particularly guardrails then hiring new juniors will become the focus.

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

Money number must always go up. Hiring people costs money. "Oh hey I just read this article, sez you can have A.I. code your stuff, for pennies?"

This may be unpopular/counter-intuitive to say, but in a capitalist world this is probably the best outcome IF (and I'm not saying I can predict the future) we expect the profession to die/be obsolete from a society POV - in such a world restricting juniors before they commit a whole career to that profession and invest too much resources into it is actually the outcome we probably want. Better than the alternative of even more mass unemployment later. If that's the case then giving people that info early, and avoiding more hiring/training now stops potential mal-investment of money and people's time into training/hiring/building careers in/etc.

It stops juniors investing their life/time/energy in a field that is shrinking and that will increasingly "not be worth it" w.r.t effort put in given their longer time horizon. This is how capitalism when working correctly can obsolete jobs somewhat charitably - it does it by closing the door on entry level jobs ideally when people have little to lose and haven't yet invested a lot of their life into it. For example they may still be young enough to re-train; or may be dismayed from entering the field due to disruption/chatter and so do something more appropriate in the new world.

Being hired in a sinking and increasingly more competitive field may actually be considered a "winner's curse" outcome, in that you will be in a industry highly competitive that is slowly sinking and is stressful with low opportunities for pay rises compared to other industries/skill sets - this is definitely playing your career in "hard mode". Most of all you will feel your skills, and value is useless relatively to people who got into more jobs with more scarcity playing life in "easy mode" with less stress and anxiety. In a few years time people getting into other fields may feel they "dodged a bullet" comparing themselves to others that did.

Being able to pivot while you are still young and ageism isn't a barrier yet is definitely something to consider remembering careers these days are multi-decades long. I feel for your kid now, and I do for mine, but I would rather than try something different in their 20's vs say their 40's when they have a mortgage, a family to feed, and/or other commitments and ageism makes it harder to pivot/re-train into another career. I don't wish my kids to feel the anxiety I and many people I know are feeling later in life especially for a career that requires constant effort to maintain and keep relevant in. I'm not recommending my kids learn what I do at all for example.

Much like everything in the economy currently, externalities are to be shouldered by "others" and if there is no "other" in aggregate, well, it's not our problem. Yet.

Our company predates AI and still doesn’t make much use of it. It’s not that useful for what we do. We have never had a junior engineering position open. Nothing we do is junior enough. There are literally no jobs in the company doable by someone with less than 5-10 years experience minimum.

This is a very valid concern that predates AI by decades. AI just makes it worse. How will we raise the next generation of experts when there is no entry level of anything? We have either outsourced or automated everything below mid career level.

This is an area that I agree with some on the nationalist right — at least about the diagnosis, but not about the cure. If we continue down this road we end up with abandoned generations struggling to pay bills beneath an entrenched gerontocracy. If we do crack any kind of real age reversing life extension this could get really dystopian, like bad cyberpunk movie stuff, where you have generations of the impoverished beneath a pickled elite that never dies and owns everything.

There aren't going to be senior engineers in the future.

> My employer has hired recently and the flood of resumes after posting for a relatively low level position was nuts.

I am utterly perplexed with the current situation on the job market, which seems to be a global phenomenon that is not constrained to a particular country or region. Late last year, I was hiring for two junior software engineering positions and (through an external recruitment partner) we received over 400 job applications for two junior positions. We, however, scrambled to narrow the number of candidates down to ten, out of which eight turned out to be lemons and two ended up being exceptionally good. 390 other applicants ended up being pure white noise.

Colleagues in a neighbouring business unit reported receiving over 600 submissions for a single position.

I have approached a few headhunters in the last couple of months with informal questions about what has been happening. They are under constant duress, receiving hundreds upon hundreds of applications for pretty much any position. The feedback is that when most people see a job ad, they put their resume through GenAI and submit whatever garbage comes out of it without even looking at the output. The vast majority of people can't even be bothered to write a simple cover letter, which could have been used as a shibboleth for the hiring manager / recruiter: «I am an intelligent human being, and I am real».

Naturally, the headhunters have responded with GenAI-assisted tools to sift through piles of putrid trash. The side effect is that such good, qualified applicants do not usually get a chance to get screened in.

The situation does not seem to be changing, and the only way out seems to be applying through a professional network or connections. People abusing GenAI are hurting themselves (ironically, GenAI has become pretty good at recognising GenAI-generated content), and they are also hurting pretty much everyone else in the process, and they do not care.

> If you aren't hiring junior engineers to do these kinds of things, where do you think the senior engineers you need in the future will come from?

They'll probably just need to learn for longer and if companies ever get so desperate for senior engineers then just take the most able/experienced junior/mid level dev.

But I'd argue before they do that if companies can't find skilled labour domestically they should consider bringing skilled workers from abroad. There are literally hundreds of millions of Indians who got connected to the internet over the last decade. There's no reason a company should struggle to find senior engineers.

I would like to take this moment to point out that in NY it is ~illegal for me to hire an unpaid intern and train them by for example saying: - this is codex, here is a bunch of tickets - enter each ticket into codex, then review each change and understand what it did. if you think what it did is good, open a PR - twice a day we will meet and i will review all the codex PRs with you and explain what is and isn't working

etc.

This would not save me time. It would be paying it forward. And I cannot do this.

This is exactly the problem. The top level executives are setting up to retire with billions in the bank, while the workers develop their own replacements before they retire with millions in the bank. Senior developers will be mostly obsolete too.

I have mentored junior developers and found it to be a rewarding part of the job. My colleagues mostly ignore juniors, provide no real guidance, couldn't care less. I see this attitude from others in the comments here, relieved they don't have to face that human interaction anymore. There are too many antisocial weirdos in this industry.

Without a strong moral and cultural foundation the AGI paradigm will be a dystopia. Humans obsolete across all industries.

The never ending march of progress.

It's probably over for these folks.

There will likely(?, hopefully?) be new adjacent gradients for people to climb.

In any case, I would worry more about your own job prospects. It's coming for everyone.

> A computer can never be held accountable

I think the issue is not about humans being entirely replaced. Instead, the issue is that if AI replaces enough number of knowledge workers while there's no new or expanded market to absorb the workforce, the new balance of supply and demand will mean that many of us will have suppressed pay or worse, losing our jobs forever.

automated visual fuzzy-testing with some self-reinforcement loops

There's already library's for QA testing and VLM's can give critique on a series of screenshots automated by a playwright script per branch

I kind of had the feeling LLMs would be better at Python vs other languages, but wow, the difference on Multi SWE is pretty crazy.

Maybe a lot of the difference we see between peoples comments about how useful AI is for their coding, is a function of what language they're using. Python coders may love it, Go coders not much at all.

Not sure what you mean by benchmaxxing but we think there's still a lot of useful signals you can infer from SWE-bench-style benchmarking.

We also have SWE-bench Multimodal which adds a twist I haven't seen elsewhere: https://www.swebench.com/multimodal.html

Thx for the reply, Im in london too ( atm )

cool it appeared - I wa sjsut worried it was a payment issue. thanks guys.

You can specify a startup script for your environment in the Edit -> adbvaned section. The code placed there will run before they cut off the internet access. Also worth noting that it uses a proxy stored in $http_proxy.

Took me an few hours today to figure out how to install maven and have it download all the dependencies. Spent an hour trying to figure out why sudo apt-get update was failing, it was because I was was using sudo!

I'm not sure what you are on about?

You can make arbitrary teams, like legal, make PRs. You would still have the proper owners of the project agree whether they take the PRs. Either by human review and/or by any other review process they set up.

Not just legal/within the standards, but which actually meet the unspoken requirements of the request. "We just need a new checkbox that asks if you're left handed" might seem easy, but then it has ramifications for the Application PDF that gets generated, as well as any systems downstream, and maybe it requires a data conversion of some sort somewhere. I know that the PO's I work with miss stuff or assume that the request will just have features by default.

All they need is "vibes".

That’s nice. And we trust that it does what it says because…? The AI company (openai, anthropic, etc) pinky promised? Have we seen their source code? How do you know they don’t train?

Facebook has been caught in recent DOJ hearings breaking the law with how they run their business, just as one example. They claimed under oath, previously, to not be doing X, and then years later there was proof they did exactly that.

https://youtu.be/7ZzxxLqWKOE?si=_FD2gikJkSH1V96r

A companies “word” means nothing imo. None of this makes sense if i’m being honest. Unless you personally have a negotiated contract with the provider, and can somehow be certain they are doing what they claim, and can later sue for damages, all of this is just crossing your fingers and hoping for the best.

They literally scraped half of youtube, made a library to extract the audio and released it as whisper.

Of _course_ they are training on your shit.

For copying the product / service yes it is not worth much .

However for people trying to compromise your system access to your code can be a valuable asset .The worth of that could be well beyond just enterprise value of the organization , it could people’s lives or bring down critical infrastructure.

You don’t just have access to code you created and have complete control to. Organizations have vendors providing code(drivers , libraries…) with narrow licenses that prohibit sharing or leaking in anyway. So this type of leak can open you to a lot of liability.

The cost of sharing your code is unknown, though.

Because from a business point of view, they just want a feature to be built, they really care about the code if it works.

I didn't realize the setup script had to be done in the UI over in the environment tab. I assumed it would be reading something like setup.sh from the codebase.

Docs could make that more clear

It seems LLMs are doing a lot of the heavy lifting figuring out the exact test, build, lint commands to run (even if the AGENTS.md file gives it direction and hints). I wonder if there are any plans to support user defined build, test, and pre commit commands to avoid unnecessary cost and keep it deterministic. Also wonder how monolith repos (or distinct but related repos) are supported, does it run everything in one container or loop through the envs that are edited?

I assume one easy next step is to just run GitHub Actions in the container since everything is defined there (assuming the user set it up)

Thanks!

Yes, and one test failed as it missed pydantic dependency

they also have a dual implementation on rust and typescript there's codex-rs in that monorepo

If it's name is 'codex-cli' then that means "Codex Command Line Interface" so the name is absolutely codex.

Codex IDE. Calling it.

oh openDevin became openHANDS. Interestingly, I committed the LICENSE file to that repo haha

TLA's have very few of their own coders, they contract everything out. Now I'm sure OAI will lend an unrestricted model to groups that pay large private contracts they won't disclose.

If codex can analyze the whole code base, I can’t see why not? I can even imagine one can set up a CI task that any committed code must pass all sort of legal/data protection requirements too

it is not even clear *if* they are going to buy windsurf at all. And thats a big if. This might've just been the 'why' that deal is not happening.

Higher chance of AGI/most SWEs being out of a job for an extended period of time than the bubble popping imo.

The Romans put down paved roads to make their horse paths more reliable.

But yes, I hope we get away from the giant conglomeration of everything, ESPECIALLY the reality of people doing 90% of their business inside a Google Chrome widow. Move towards the UNIX philosophy of tiny single-purpose programs.

> I have now created 5 hyper narrow programs that are used daily by my company to do work. I am not a programmer and my company is not a tech company located in a tech bubble. We are a tiny company that does old school manufacturing.

OK, great.

> That you are trying to use LLMs to create giant sprawling codebase feature packed software packages that define the modern software landscape. What's being missed is that any one user might only utilize 5% of the code base on any given day. Software is written to accommodate every need every user could have in one package. Then the users just use the small slice that accommodates their specific needs.

With all due respect, the fact that you made a few small programs to help with your tasks is wonderful but this last statement alone rather disqualifies your expertise to make an assessment on software engineering in general.

There's a great number of reasons why codebases get large. Complex problems inherently come with complexity and scale in both code and integrations. You can choose to move the complexity around but never fully get rid of it.

I agree, but I'd add that it's not just the tech giants who want them to be better than they are, but also non-programmers.

IMO LLMs are actually pretty good at writing small scripts. First, it's much more common for a small script to be in the LLM's training data, and second, it's much easier to find and fix a bug. So the LLM actually does allow a non-programmer to write correct code with minimal effort (for some simple task), and then they are blown away thinking writing software is a solved problem. However, these kinds of people have no idea of the difference between a hundred line script where an error is easily found and isn't a big deal and a million line codebase where an error can be invisible and shut everything down.

Worst of all is when the two sides of tech-giants and non-programmers meet. These two sides may sound like opposites but they really aren't. In particular, there are plenty of non-programmers involved at the C-level and the HR levels of tech companies. These people are particularly vulnerable to being wowed by LLMs seemingly able to do complex tasks that in their minds are the same tasks their employees are doing. As a result, they stop hiring new people and tell their current people to "just use LLMs", leading to the current hiring crisis.

TBH, this website in the last few years has attracted an increasingly non-technical audience. And the field, in general, has attracted a lot of less experienced folks that don't understand the implications of what they're doing. I don't mean that as a diss-- but just a reflection of reality.

Indeed, even codex (and i've been using it prior to this release) is not remotely at the level of even a junior engineer outside of a set of tasks.

Its a total of about 30 snippets, avg 6 paragraphs long, that I have to inject. for each role switch it goes through i have to re inject them.

its a pain but it works.

Even TDD it will hallucinate the mocks without management. and hallucinate the requirements. Each layer has to be checked atomically, but the text expander snippets done right can get it close to 75% right.

My main project faces 5000 users so I cant let the agents run freely, whereas with isolated projects in separate repos I can let them run more freely, then review in gitkraken before committing.

I think there's a disconnect between what you and the person you're replying to are defining as "tinkering". Your conception of it seems more focused on the end product when, to use your analogy, the original comment seems unconcerned with the size of castles.

If you derive enjoyment from actually assembling the castle, you lose out on that by using the wand that makes it happen instantly. Sure wand's castles may be larger, but you don't put a Lego castle together for the finished product.

> build much larger castles, much faster

See that never was the purpose.. going bigger and faster, towards what exactly? Chaos? By the way we never managed to fully tackle manual software development by trained professionals and we now expect Shangri-La by throwing everything and the kitchen sink into giant inscrutable matrices. This time by amateurs as well. I'm sure this will all turn out very well and very, very productive.

I think the bigger issue with this is that the number of developer jobs will shrink.

Factorio blueprints in action.

Software engineering requires a fair amount of intelligence, so if these tools ever get to replacement levels of quality then it's not just developers that will be out of jobs. ARC-AGI-2, the countless anecdotes from professionals I've seen across the industry, and personal experience all very clearly point to a significant gap between the tools that exist today and general intelligence. I would recommend keeping an eye on improvements just because of the sheer capital investments going into it, but I won't be losing any sleep waiting for the rapture.

How so? I see it as more bugs around the corner.

It's actually not. My job description does not say "deliver value" and nobody talks about my work like that so I'm not quite sure what to make of that.

> without sacrificing quality

Right..

> it's your responsibility to use that tool

Again, it's actually not. It's my responsibility to do my job, not to make my boss' - or his boss' - car nicer. I know that's what we all know will create "job security" but let's not conflate these things. My job is to do my end of the bargain. My boss' job is paying me for doing that. If he deems it necessary to force me to use AI bullshit, I will of course, but it is definitely not my responsibility to do so autonomously.

> these tools are not only useful for writing the final code

This sparked a thought in how a large part of the job is often the work needed to demonstrate impact. I think this aspect is often overlooked by some of the good engineers not yet taking advantage of the AI tooling. LLM loops may not yet be good enough to produce shippable code by themselves, but they sure are capable to help reduce the overhead of these up and out communicative tasks.

> At the end of the day, it's your job to deliver value. If a tool allows you to deliver more faster, without sacrificing quality

I guess that's LLMs ruled out then

Obviously there is no way to really predict when this would happen, but I don't think it will be up to developers to decide whether it happens or not. In Texas for example, the legislature forced engineering to be professionalized (or regulated) in an emergency session after a school in a well off area exploded in a gas explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_School_explosion#In...).

I also do not think this is limited to software engineering. Medical doctors and accountants have faced the squeeze in recent years too. There are tons of (bad) DO med schools opening up across the country that will be flooding the field before long, nurse practitioners and physicians assistants get to do more and more work that only doctors got to do, and more and more accounting is being offshored. The question is when things get so bad that even the powerful decide to actually do something about it.

> Hyper intelligent coding agents, but can't make their website work.

I know right

also no human to contact on support... tempted to cancel the sub lol i'll give them 24h

Yes sorry meant pro,

I just enabled on Settings > Connectors > Github

hoping that makes it work

... still doesnt work, is it geo-restricted maybe? idk

> will be rolling

≠ available now to all pro users