Hacker News Reader

Comment by al_borland | Hacker News Reader

It's also where I find most of the work. There are plenty of off the shelf tools to solve all the needs of the company I work at. However, we still end up making a lot of our own stuff, because we want something that the off the shelf option doesn't do, or it can't scale to the level we need. Other times we buy two tools that can't talk to each other and need to write something to make them talk. I often hear people online say they simply copy/paste stuff together from Stack Overflow, but that has never been something I could do at my job.

My concern isn't about an LLM replacing me. My concern is our CIO will think it can, firing first, and thinking later.

View on HN

It’s not just about if a LLM could replace you, if a LLM replaces other enough other programmers it’ll tank the market price for your skills.

I don’t think this will happen because we’ll just increase the complexity of the systems we imagine. I think a variant of Wirth’s law applies here: the overall difficulty of programming tasks stays constant because, when a new tool simplifies a previously hard task, we increase our ambitions.

In general people are already working at their limits, tooling can help a bit but the real limitation to handling complexity is human intelligence and that appears to be mostly innate. The people this replaces can’t exactly skill up to escape the replacement, and the AI will keep improving so the proportion being replaced will only increase. As someone near the top end of the skill level my hope is that I’ll be one of the last to go, I’ll hopefully make enough money in that time to afford a well stocked bunker.

But, for example, I probably couldn’t have written a spell checker myself forty years ago. Now, something like aspell or ispell is just an of the shelf library. Similarly, I couldn’t implement Timely Stream Processing in a robust way, but flink makes it pretty easy for me to use with a minimal conceptual understanding of the moving parts. New abstractions and tools raise the floor, enabling junior and mid-level engineers to do what would have taken a much more senior engineer before they existed.

"in a robust way" does a lot of work here and works as a weasel word/phrase, i.e. it means whatever the reader wants it to mean (or can be redefined in an argument to suit your purpose).

Why is it that you feel that you couldn't make stream processing that works for your use cases? Is it also that you couldn't do it after some research? Are you one of the juniors/mids that you refer to in your poost?

I'm trying to understand this type of mindset because I've found that overwhelmingly most things can be done to a perfectly acceptable degree and often better than big offerings just from shedding naysayer attitudes and approaching it from first principles. Not to mention the flexibility you get from then owning and understanding the entire thing.

I think you’re taking what I’m saying the opposite of the way I intended it. With enough time and effort, I could probably implement the relevant papers and then use various tools to prove my implementation free of subtle edge cases. But, Flink (and other stream processing frameworks) let me not spend the complexity budget on implementing watermarks, temporal joins and the various other primitives that my application needs. As a result, I can spend more of my complexity budget within my domain and not on implementation details.

I used to think that way but from my experience and observations I've found that engineers are more limited by their innate intelligence rather than their tooling. Experience counts but without sufficient intelligence some people will never figure out certain things no matter how much experience they have - I wish it wasn't so but it's the reality that I have observed. Better tooling will exacerbate the difference between smart and not so smart engineers with the smart engineers becoming more productive and the not so smart engineers will instead be replaced.

If an LLM gets good enough to come for our jobs it is likely to replace all the people who hire us, all the way up to the people who work at the VC funds that think any of our work had value in the first place (remember: the VC fund managers are yet more employees that work for capital, and are just as subject to being replaced as any low-level worker).

that's true, but it's harder to replace someone when you have a personal connection to them. VC fund managers are more likely to be personally known to he person who signs the checks. low-level workers may never have spoken any words to them or even ever have met them.

I think another possibility is if you have skills that an LLM can’t replicate, your value may actually increase.

Only if the other people that the LLM did replace cannot cross train into your space. Price is set at the margins. People imagine it’ll be AI taking the jobs but mostly it’ll be people competing with other people for the space that’s left after AI has taken its slice.

Then the CIO itself gets fired … after all, average per job life of a CIO is roughly 18 months

Reply on news.ycombinator.com