What if it just makes most jobs worse, or replaces good jobs with more, worse jobs? "Meat robot constantly monitored and directed by AI overlords" is technically a job.
Right. Consider:
1) Senior engineer writing code
vs.
2) Senior engineer prompting and code reviewing LLM agent
The senior engineer is essential to the process in each case, because the LLM agent left to its own devices will produce nonfunctional crap. But think about the pleasantness of the job and the job satisfaction of the senior engineer? Speaking just for myself, I'd rather quit the industry than spend my career babysitting nonhuman A.I. That's not what I signed up for.
But I guess if you don't like writing code, and you are "just doing it for the money", having an LLM write all the code for you is fine. As long as it passes some very low bar of quality — which, let's be honest — is enough for most companies (i.e. software factories) out there.
I haven't seen any evidence its made progress on these which is nice
And really, I think many senior engineers are already doing both in a lot of cases where they're helping guide and teach junior and early mid-level developers.
Babysitting and correcting automated tools is radically different from mentoring less experienced engineers. First, and most important IMO, there's no relationship. It's entirely impersonal. You become alienated from your fellow humans. I'm reminded of Mark Zuckerberg recently claiming that in the future, most of your "friends" will be A.I. That's not an ideal, it's a damn dystopia.
Moreover, you're not teaching the LLM anything. If the LLMs happen to become better in the future, that's not due to your mentoring. The time you spend reviewing the automatically generated code does not have any productive side effects, doesn't help to "level up" your coworkers/copilots.
Also, since LLMs aren't human, they don't make human mistakes. In some sense, reviewing a human engineer's code is an exercise in mind reading: you can guess what they were thinking, and where they might have overlooked something. But LLMs don't "think" in the same way, and they tend to produce bizarre results and mistakes that a human would never make. Reviewing their code can be a very different, and indeed unpleasant WTF experience.
I don't mentor juniors because it makes me more productive I mentor juniors because I enjoy watching a human grow and develop and gain expertise
I am reminded of reports that Ian McKellen broke down crying on the set of one of The Hobbit movies because the joy of being an actor for him was nothing like acting on green screen sets delivering lines to a tennis ball on a stick
just like with open vs. closed offices or remote vs in-person, maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want.
This isn't about satisfying a person's need for socializing it is about satisfying society's need for well socialized people
You can prefer closed offices and still be a well socialized person
You can prefer remote work and still be a well socialized person
You can even prefer working alone and still be a well socialized person
If you are in favor of replacing all humans with machines, you are pretty much by definition an asocial person and society should reject you
every technological push has been to automate more and more and every time that's happened we've reduced socialization to some extent or changed the nature of it (social media anyone? and yes, this also has everything to do with remote vs in-person, etc, all which pull the lever on what level of socialization is acceptable).
just because it doesn't fit your particular brand doesn't mean it's wrong, and it's clear this is pushing on your line where you find it unacceptable. i could just as well argue that people who do not show up to an in-person office are not "socialized" to the degree society needs them to be.
the debate has always been to what degree is this acceptable.
Your comment would be improved by simply removing that phrase. It adds nothing and in fact detracts.
> just like with open vs. closed offices or remote vs in-person, maybe some people have all the human interaction they want outside of work and don't mind "talking" to some AI as long as it gets shit done in the manner they want.
You're presenting a false dichotomy. If someone doesn't enjoying mentoring juniors, that's fine. They shouldn't have to. But why would one have to choose between mentoring juniors or babysitting LLM agents? How about neither?
sasmithjr was apparently trying to defend babysitting A.I. by making an analogy with mentoring juniors, whereas I replied by arguing that the two are not alike. Whether or not you enjoy using A.I. is an entirely separate issue, independent of mentoring.
maybe you're responding to the wrong person? because i'm not even disagreeing with you on that. maybe they want both or neither, that's fine.
the person i'm responding to is framing mentoring as some kind must have from a "socialization" standpoint (which i disagreed with, but i get the practical aspect of it where if you don't have people train juniors there won't be seniors).
I mean "socialization" as in "being a positive part of and building a society worth living in"
if it's rewarding to you that's great, but don't frame it as something bigger than it is. i would hope we are all "being a positive part of and building a society worth living in" in our own way.
If you don't like or want to mentor the younger generation then you are actively sabotaging the future of society because those people are the future of society
Why do I care about the future of society? Because I still have to live in it for another few decades
maybe i like taking care of my friends kids, volunteering, or doing other things that contribute to the "future of society"? personally, i think mentoring junior devs is slightly lower on the priority list, but that's my opinion.
seriously, how arrogant of you to make assumptions about how others think about the future based on a tiny slice of your personal life lol.
That's great, that doesn't absolve you of your responsibility to also mentor juniors at work though
Those are different tasks in different worlds and they all need doing
if you've optimized every facet of your life to do all the "responsible things" society needs then feel free to throw the first stone. anything else is just posturing.
and just a small thing, it's ironic that you're so fixated on socialization for society’s sake while being so tunnel-visioned in defending your own definition of what that even means. i've given you plenty examples but it just doesn't fit the one you personally adhere to.
I regret adding that last bit to my comment because my main point (which I clearly messed up emphasizing and communicating) is that I think you’re presenting a false dichotomy in the original comment. Now that work can be done with LLMs asynchronously, it’s possible to both write your own code and guide LLMs as they need it when you have down time. And nothing about that requires stopping other functions of the job like mentoring and teaching juniors, either, so you can still build relationships on the job, too.
If having to attend to an LLM in any way makes the job worse for you, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. So far, LLMs feel like one of many other automations that I use frequently and haven’t really changed my satisfaction with my job.
I think you're downplaying the nightmare scenario, and your own previous comment already suggests a more expansive use of LLM: "so a senior engineer can send it off to work on multiple issues at once".
What I fear, and what I already see happening to an extent, is a top-down corporate mandate to use AI, indeed a mandate to maximize the use of AI in order to maximize (alleged) "productivity". Ultimately, then, senior engineers become glorified babysitters of the AI. It's not about the personal choice of the engineer, just like, as the other commenter mentioned, open vs. closed offices or remote vs. in-person are often not the choice of individual engineers but rather a top-down corporate mandate.
We've already seen a corporate backlash against remote work and a widespread top-down demand for RTO. That's real; it's happened and is happening.