Top
Best
New

Posted by abnercoimbre 2 hours ago

Why Do They Want to Get Rid of Software Engineers?(jrswab.com)
30 points | 39 comments
js8 10 minutes ago|
I kind of agree with the article. AI will make SW engineers (or engineers in general) lot more productive, but you still need someone who translates the fuzzy and potentially conflicting specs into something that can be built. That involves a lot of little decisions on how to resolve contradictions, and that's why formal programming language is used. AI can do it to an extent, but likely it won't get you what you want with less communication.

It's a misunderstanding that AI makes SW engineers less valuable, when the code making is cheaper. This assumes there is some fixed amount of code that the society needs to produce. I think the companies will face a different reality - the code they own ("intellectual property") will become less valuable, but the programmers (who are now effectively promoted to kind of product managers) will become more valuable, as they can now do more (and cause more damage, too).

The innovations of the past, such as compilers and open source, which made programmers more productive, didn't make them obsolete.

That being said, it will take companies (and their owners) some time to accept the new reality - programmers have more power now and it's harder to gatekeep what they work on. So the management of these companies will try to twist it, which will ultimately be counterproductive. The programmers should recognize it and look into some form of social organization - be it unions, professional organization or worker cooperatives. (Distinction of labor vs capital is not a natural law, just like the distinction between lords and peasants isn't god-given.)

ekjhgkejhgk 1 hour ago||
Software engineers are laborers. If you're a capital owner, a laborer is something that weights down your returns.

It's not rocket science.

SoftTalker 1 hour ago||
Yes this has been the motivation for decades. There has always been a language, methodology, or system being hyped that promised to eliminate the need for trained programmers. Why? Because they are expensive.

Digital computers were cheaper than the legions of human "calculators" that they replaced, but once those savings were realized, the next step was to attack the smaller number but still expensive per head staff of programmers you needed to get the most value out of a computer.

deepsun 1 hour ago|||
Counterpoint -- capital owners see SWEs as their asset, and owners do not like to see their assets go away (with intellectual property in their heads). So they nurture and give a lot of freedom to their SWEs.

I've seen both ways, and don't share the "capital owners BAD" sentiment. The first thing to join a company is to see whether they assign Eng department to Costs or to Assets mentally.

Jtsummers 1 hour ago||
> Counterpoint -- capital owners see SWEs as their asset, and owners do not like to see their assets go away (with intellectual property in their heads).

The same is true for other knowledge workers, not just programmers. That doesn't mean that if corporate owners and managers had a magic wand that could replicate the worker on demand they wouldn't use it and toss the knowledge worker aside. They would do so happily, especially if it saved them money.

The reason that programmers (few are actually engineers, no reason to bullshit we're among friends and can be honest) have been treated so well is that they were hard to replace. If that barrier gets lifted, or is perceived to have been lifted, they'll get rid of the programmers in a heartbeat.

joe_the_user 1 hour ago|||
I agree but I'd also note that a capital owner actually has a couple motivations to get rid of high paid labors.

1) Cost

2) Flexibility. If you can hire random laborers to do most of your tasks, you can quickly scale up whereas if you depend on highly skilled and trained workers, starting a new operation elsewhere is hard. Similar, you can shift activity around, are less impeded by the opinions of workers, etc. Significantly, this may allow you to "franchise" your operations in various ways.

ducktastic 1 hour ago||
From what I am seeing in the consulting space for enterprisey companies is that there is an extreme push to normalize /standardize all tools/platforms not even talking about AI tools to be able to replace tribal knowledge with cheaper workers. The narrative and in some cases reality of AI is just bringing the badhavior to the forefront
palmotea 1 hour ago||
> Software engineers are laborers. If you're a capital owner, a laborer is something that weights down your returns.

> It's not rocket science.

It's far above the heads of many supposedly "smart" software engineers, who looked at their high salaries and 401ks, forgot they were disposable laborers, and confused themselves for capitalist tycoons.

Drop the libertarianism and form a labor union before it's too late. You're not smart if you're parroting your boss's talking points like an idiot.

bayarearefugee 1 hour ago||
> forgot they were disposable laborers, and confused themselves for capitalists.

I agree with this, but it isn't just limited to software engineers. Most of the supposed "middle class" in the US fits this description.

We currently have the highest level of wealth inequality in history which is still growing at runaway rates and plenty of laborers who view themselves as "temporarily embarrassed billionaires" willing to prop up the system, seemingly unaware that those at the top will gladly wipe them off their boot when given the chance.

Snoozle 1 hour ago||
Why does this entire article read like chatgpt? Kind of ironic considering the content.

Big llm smells: 'Not "AI helps you autocomplete a function." Not "AI explains a stack trace." I mean the full-on narrative:'

'Sure, it's a weird language. It looks archaic. Sometimes it's hostile. Sometimes it's beautiful.

But still—if you know what you're doing—you can sit down with a keyboard and turn words into:

a product a workflow an automated business process a system that makes money while you sleep a tool that saves a team thousands of hours That's real power. It's leverage.'

'Not because we're lazy. Not because we're gatekeeping. Because building real systems is hard, and the number of people who can reliably do it is limited.'

Sometimes I think we get too caught up on what chatgpt will do to the economy, software, and businesses, and forget the most insidious aspect of this type of technology - we will no longer know how to write and all human text communication will confirm to a specific pattern.

mwigdahl 1 hour ago||
I don't know if it's LLM-generated or not, but I'm guessing you're right. It sure as hell matches the horrible choppy LinkedIn blogspam pattern, though, and that was enough to bounce me right there.
ekjhgkejhgk 1 hour ago|||
Who's "we"? I won't stop knowing how to write. If other people do, that's their problem.
edgolub 1 hour ago|||
The next generation on humans growing up with TikTok autogenerated AI videos written by ChatGPT, generated by Sora and uploaded to the web using OpenClaw or whatever automation tool you wrote using Claude Code.

There are literally people running bots creating such shortform videos as we speak.

And there are millions of kids (and adults) scrolling those same videos as you reading this.

Let that sink in.

ekjhgkejhgk 1 hour ago||
> The next generation on humans growing up with TikTok autogenerated AI videos written by ChatGPT

That's other people. I'm not in that cesspol and neither will my children.

Snoozle 1 hour ago|||
I meant rather the market for human writing will vanish when 80% or more of the population views LLM text as good communication.
croisillon 1 hour ago|||
not one word written by the author, i'd rather read the prompt
armchairhacker 1 hour ago||
Why do "they" (bloggers) want to get rid of their own writing?

What are the good reasons to write a blog, minus those that involve you actually writing it?

Lumping6371 1 hour ago||
I guess just status farming, or some sort of delusion about writing being a hindrance to conveying your ideas, much like with writing code.
recursivedoubts 1 hour ago||
They want to get rid of software engineers because we are expensive, we have an annoying habit of saying no, we are not particularly good looking on average and are not obviously tied to directly revenue in a way that sales is (sales folks tend to be good looking too as a bonus.)

It's basic market dynamics + some high school social calculus.

paxys 1 hour ago||
This reads like a fanfic.

"My manager wants to get rid of me because I'm too good with computers and he is jealous."

No, he wants to get rid of you because you are an operating expense for the company. If they can achieve the same outcome without paying your salary then why wouldn’t they fire you?

ASalazarMX 1 hour ago|
So far they have prevailed despite RADs, 4GLs, no-code solutions, etc. Software engineers have ended up using these new tools to still develop. You can already see developers embracing LLMs to create heaps of trash for fun while they learn to integrate them in their job.

It would take a huge leap forward, if not actual AGI, to fully replace Software Developers. If that's the case, they could replace any human job at any level, not just developers.

rglover 2 hours ago||
Jealousy definitely. They can't do the thing that they depend on for money and AI gives them some feeling of power/an upper-hand. That's why the AI art types immediately started bashing traditional artists as "paint pigs."
abnercoimbre 1 hour ago||
I think it spreads further. I just read two different blog posts from two very different authors lamenting the death of "indie businesses." Another developer in person expressed "concern" for me too. What they all had in common is they're in corporate or SaaS, looking at my indie work from the outside.
Copyrightest 1 hour ago||
[dead]
0x20cowboy 1 hour ago||
“Here's the part I think a lot of people miss:”

:-/

The same argument could be made about people writing articles and influencing actions in other humans. Something, it seems, people want to use AI for. Have AI write articles for them.

mono442 1 hour ago||
It's natural to reduce the cost of doing business.
hshdhdhj4444 1 hour ago||
I’m honestly at a loss for words at this question.

We’re software engineers. Like half of the work we do is try and automate jobs.

Are we really confused about why “they” might want to automate our jobs?

aogaili 34 minutes ago|
We don't just automate jobs, that's a narrow way of looking at it.

We manage complexity.

moralestapia 30 minutes ago|
???

Flagged why?

I think it was a pretty good article.

I don't how this could offend anyone.

Jtsummers 10 minutes ago|
I suspect it got flagged by the people who think it was written by an LLM, and the people who thought the "jealousy" argument was particularly weak. It's also a lot of words when the answer is obvious (as pointed out by many commenters here): Money.

Since the development of computers, companies have wanted to save money and that's meant a push to find a magic bullet that can replace many, if not most or all, programmers. Natural language programming, RAD tools, much of the work on fifth-generation languages, was oriented around that objective (removing or reducing the dependence on programmers as a category of professionals, versus domain experts who happen to also program).

More comments...