Why Do They Want to Get Rid of Software Engineers?

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.)

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

It's not rocket science.

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.

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.

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?

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."

“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.

It's natural to reduce the cost of doing business.

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?

I've been noticing lately that the discussion around LLMs and using them for programming has begun to expose people for how little they understand programming or what software developers do in general. I think I generally agree with the author as a result. A year ago I might think this was more naive, but today... I think software development has more of a moat than I thought, for more reasons than I originally perceived.

There are a lot of senior developers who discuss how they use LLMs and why, for example, and it exposes that even with a decade or so of experience, people can have extremely thin and weak understandings of what they're doing, and why. That isn't to cast shade at all, and I've been (and will be) the experienced yet clueless person at times. I could be right now.

A reductive description is that it's turning a lot of people in expert beginners, and the coworker they collaborate most now has no way of compensating for it. LLMs are useful and powerful tools, but they can't make up for these kinds of deficiencies yet. It doesn't seem like they will very soon, either. As they get better at generating code, they seem to simultaneously widen gaps in their ability to identify or anticipate bugs or poorly fit solutions.

I can't imagine the messes people are creating with LLMs when they have no experience at all, though. They might feel empowered (and to a degree they certainly are) but when it comes to complex, large, mission-critical, and/or distributed systems... These tools are nowhere near where they need to be.

Otherwise, I've also found that important software can now become more ambitious. We seem to model the career risk developers face based on the software of today, but what I'm seeing is that I'm able to build and maintain more ambitious projects than ever. I'll be pushing the limits of what's possible for myself for a while yet, and I suspect it will continue to produce value for the people I work with. I could have these tools do the work I used to do (or help me do it faster) and leave it at that, but the reality is that I don't just stop there. I keep going, I continue refining, I discover more ways to make it more valuable, I iterate faster and maintain a tighter feedback loop with the people who use the things I create.

So, why would I be eliminated from that process? Do people really believe that my position in that loop will be eliminated by AI? This seems to disregard a myriad of qualities that allow software developers to be effective and valuable team members.

If that happens, frankly, I believe far more roles than software development would be eliminated at that point. The implications would go far beyond software.

Part of this is jealousy (yes, I said it)

It's not jealousy though. It's seeing an operational bottleneck as inefficiency. If you know what you want and you have to go through someone else to get it, that's frustrating, so you look for ways around it. AI is a way around software engineers.

The key to remaining usefully employed is not to be the bottleneck. If it's faster for someone to get to a solution with a software engineer than without a software engineer then you will remain employed. This is largely irrespective of cost - generally speaking spending money on a salaries to go faster is always better so long as you're actually going faster.

???

Flagged why?

I think it was a pretty good article.

I don't how this could offend anyone.

It would be much better to replace CEOs & other C-suite execs but no one is working on that kind of AI.

If developers are honest with themselves, this has been a long time coming.

In the early 00s, nobody even knew what the hell we were doing. Most people asked things like “do you do IT?” nobody really got it.

The idea of photoshopping a mockup, or the idea that Wordpress is how you build the website for their business and why they now need “HTML5”, the cloud and advent of IaaS/PaaS, I digress:

All the esoteric aspects of the work and knowledge have been curricularized.

There are a million Joe React Developers now, everybody can use Figma, anyone can manage a sprint, and with AI forget it - anyone can play now.

Buuut not so fast you say, and yeah I agree with you!

And yet, I know that you know that they know that we know that they know. You know?

They want to replace software engineers because they want exclusive power and because they are not team players.

Narcissism

> Part of this is jealousy (yes, I said it)

This feels like cope here.

They want to get rid of SWE because they are highly paid (in the US especially) and they want them for cheap (e.g. Bangalore, London)

AI just makes it a no brainer.

Also I don't think there is anything wrong with everyone being a software engineer, more accessibility to the SWE field for all is great.

Current SWE's will just need to now adapt quicker to remain relevant, and those that can't will just then leave the field.

Perhaps those that don't adapt were probably not good engineers anyway.

A job is a machine that takes money from someone who is very wealthy and gives that money to someone who does not already have enough wealth to live a safe and secure life of idle leisure. The people who have wealth want there to be as few jobs as possible. If they can eliminate a highly compensated job, all the better.

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

It's not rocket science.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.