> Codex will support me and others in performing our work effectively away from our desks.
This feels so hopelessly optimistic to me, because "effectively away from our desks" for most people will mean "in the unemployment line"
This feels so hopelessly optimistic to me, because "effectively away from our desks" for most people will mean "in the unemployment line"
Also there's a matter of taste, as commented above, the best way to use these is going to be running multiple runs at once (that's going to be super expensive right now so we'll need inference improvements on today's SOTA models to make this something we can reasonably do on every task). Then somebody needs to pick which run made the best code, and even then you're going to want code review probably from a human if it's written by machine.
Trusting the machine and just vibe coding stuff is fine for small projects or maybe even smaller features, but for a codebase that's going to be around for a while I expect we're going to want a lot of human involvement in the architecture. AI can help us explore different paths faster, but humans need to be driving it still for quite some time - whether that's by encoding their taste into other models or by manually reviewing stuff, either way it's going to take maintenance work.
In the near-term, I expect engineering teams to start looking for how to leverage background agents more. New engineering flows need to be built around these and I am bearish on the current status quo of just outsource everything to the beefiest models and hope they can one-shot it. Reviewing a bunch of AI code is also terrible and we have to find a better way of doing that.
I expect since we're going to be stuck on figuring out background agents for a while that teams will start to get in the weeds and view these agents as critical infra that needs to be designed and maintained in-house. For most companies, foundation labs will just be an API call, not hosting the agents themselves. There's a lot that can be done with agents that hasn't been explored much at all yet, we're still super early here and that's going to be where a lot of new engineering infra work comes from in the next 3-5 years.
I expect that anyone who is a skilled dev today will be fine. Expectations and competition might be higher, but so will production and value creation.
I think the demand will come, just as Excel didn’t put finance people out of jobs in aggregate.
Bankers (and customers) benefited from ATMs as far more bank locations became economically sustainable and bank tellers could do higher value work (and do so more safely).
Millions of software developers continue to benefit from improvements in productivity, the resulting value creation, and the resulting high pay in our sector from ever more productive languages and frameworks. Can you imagine how little pay you'd make trying to sling websites in assembly language at less than 1% of the pace of today?
You're absurdly naive if you think developers will see the most benefit. We will have fewer developers just as we have fewer farmers and factory workers. When labor is automated it becomes owned by fewer people, this is historically consistent for over a hundred years across every sector. Thousands of towns have collapsed under this sort of change and effects are felt for generations.
> Can you imagine how little pay you'd make trying to sling websites in assembly language at less than 1% of the pace of today
Productivity gains do not align with income gains, this is a complete strawman. Developers today may be 100x more productive, but they do not have a 100x higher income.
Ask yourself, where did that value go — and is that fair? We're creating the automation and someone else is taking the lions share of the benefit. We're being conned.
I genuinely hope that they think they're getting rich as part of that exchange (and work to ensure that outcome happens), because that's the very best way that I know how to make the overall situation, including the benefits for me and my family, continue.
If you think I'm being conned in this exchange, thanks for the concern, but I'll tell you that I'm working hard to ensure that it keeps happening.
AI is what they're doing to try to stop this, when we work on AI we're enabling it.
They are making much more money for themselves than they are for you. Your salary is overhead. They will stop paying you if they can and they are trying to use AI to do it.
In a fair agreement you would have more time to spend with your family because you would earn a higher share of the profit and need to work less for it.
I don't, because I highly value the structure and capital that others have put up to create the company I work for. They offload an enormous amount of risk and overhead and, so long as they pay me what we've agreed, I'm happy for them to keep the portion of value that is above what they pay out to me and my colleagues.
The agreement is fair to my eyes, because I've agreed to it and both sides have kept up their ends. If yours is not fair to your eyes, perhaps you should change it, possibly up to striking out on your own and keeping 100% of the surplus value you create.
employing humans is something that couldn't be affordably addressed by software, and is what they're trying to now address with software
this is good for owners, and bad for workers
thusly AI is bad for workers as a class, and you're betting that you're one of the workers they decide to keep
all I have left to say on the matter is, good luck
We've used our software development skills to automate other people out of work for what can be argued to be literally decades. Each time we did it, we certainly expected that the people affected would find other work. New jobs were created. The world didn't end. I honestly don't think it would be that much worse this time.
And that's the shitty part of the job, and everyone should be uncomfortable with it. I haven't literally automated anyone out of a job (that I know), but I definitely did not like finding out (after the fact) that one project was meant to enable a large offshoring effort.
> Each time we did it, we certainly expected that the people affected would find other work.
I do not expect that. That's a comforting lie people tell themselves.
> New jobs were created. The world didn't end. I honestly don't think it would be that much worse this time.
It didn't end, but it often got significantly worse for some. If the AI hype pans out, it's going to get significantly worse for software engineers. Your "newly created job," if it exists, will likely pay out a lot less that you're used to. At best, you'll get knocked down to the bottom of the career ladder.
It's a mistake to think about things in aggregate like you're doing. It's easy to hide inconvenient truths.
Uh.. I'm having trouble considering this as a serious question. It's objectively going to lead to them being in a worse situation. Mostly irrelevant resume and needing to re-skill into something and start from the bottom.. out of a well paid career that many enjoy and find fulfilling
My question wasn't an ethical one. It's why are the people that are the target of this automation happy about the progress, to the point of trying to push it forward faster, cheering it on
But the automation is not the problem, it's the economic structure in which increased efficiency makes a lot of people worse off.
Software engineers are dumb. Really dumb.
Now you could argue that any non technical person could just oversee the agents instead. Possibly. Though in my experience, humans like to have other humans they trust oversee and understand important stuff for them.
With Codex and Claude Code, these model agents are cars.
Some of horses will become drivers of cars and some of us will no longer be needed to pull wagons and will be out of a job.
Is that the proper framing?
An amusing image, but your analogy lost me here.
I think CEOs or PMs or Founders are like horse jockeys. Devs are like horses. (Some of them are both the jockey and the horse).
AI is a car. CEO or PM or Founder might smoothly swap out the horse for a car and continue on with little change.
For the horse to become a driver of a car is a more difficult challenge, but not impossible. It needs to evolve.
If you’ve seen the work hours and work ethic of farmers, it’s safe to say that most of those people got other jobs that take far less work than farmers did/do.
Closer to our field, I think we’d have far worse work lives (fewer of us employed and much lower pay) if we had to code everything in assembler still. The creation of more powerful abstractions and languages allowed more of us to become software devs and make a living this way than if all we had were the less productive tools of the early days of computing.
If we can find a way to support those displaced even that would be a much better start. e.g. re-education funds, training schools/government run apprenticeships on projects, etc. Especially if the scale of the displacement is large. We all only have the one life IMV - its about giving those lives the opportunities to pivot. Ageism, and gatekeeping will stop many from changing careers.
I'd like you to be right, but I live in society where joy at work is often considered antithetical to productivity. No matter how much more productive I get, that space is used to fill in more productivity. We'll need more than tooling to stop this.
Are you pretending that automation doesn’t take away human jobs?
We should welcome automation and efficiency, but also address the situation of the "losers" of the development and not just expect the invisible hand will sort everything out.
If I try to approximate the same today, the median US family can be fed for something around 1/10th of their labor.
That seems like a fantastic improvement, unless you really, really like farming.
automation was good for farming, but the consolidation into corporate megafarms probably not so much
I would argue that automating labor isn't bad, but it's being used to take labor away without a solution