AI is making junior devs useless
beabetterdev.com
beabetterdev.com
I suspect the progression will be "No AI until intuition (whatever that is for that skill)" -> "Gradual use of AI to understand where it falls short" -> "AI native expert".
How to actually implement this at scale is still TBD ;-) Ironically, AI will be invaluable for this e.g. as a hyper-personalized tutor but it will also present an irresistible temptation to offload the hands-on practice. We already have studies indicating the former is helpful but the latter stifles mastery. At this point I can only see self-discipline as a mechanism to willingly avoid AI.
Unfortunately, our testing-oriented education system only serves to incentivize over-reliance on AI (Goodhart's Law etc.) None of our current institutions and processes are suited for what is already happening and will only accelerate from here on. Things will need to change radically.
For this reason, I once predicted apprenticeships will be a thing again, and already there are signs with Microsoft's preceptorship proposal: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3779312
This is highly encouraging because a tech giant is not only acknowledging the problem, but proposing a solution. Not a complete solution by far but at least a start.
So, I agree with you, but it's also already been true for decades now with other tools.
A spellchecker is purely mechanical, it just helps you spell your essay right. But it won't make your essay good, or help you write the right essay.
WolframAlpha usually got to the correct answer, but often used a non-human strategy for integration. Generally, the best way to do it was simpler than what WolframAlpha's "step-by-step" showed, which was rather "brute force" and inelegant.
So, again, I agree. But again, it's a matter of degree and encompassing more domains vs. a binary change.
As a kid, I remember my teachers not allowing us to use calculators and times table pencils exactly to make us go through the painful process of using our brain to get to know math.
Today I'm doing a Master's on AI and AI is a tool I use not only to summarize, but to validate my understading. I don't jump into a GPT session asking it to do the exercise for me or to explain something. I ask it to help me finding out my error after inumerous tries; to say the same thing me in another words because English isn't my first language and often I don't know the terminology that the Academia uses; to write an analogy (which often absurd ones pop up); to guide me where I'm missing something.
It's a freaking powerful learning tool if used properly.
Do you realise how difficult this actually is? Millions of people have zero self-discipline with their consumption of social media.
One strategy I can think of is to remove the incentive to offload to AI, which probably means reducing the reliance on tests for evaluation. However, this also assumes intrinsic motivation within the students, which is also far from a given! Who's going to be motivated to do things the "hard way" when they don't even like the topic? Yet our curriculum is full of compulsory topics.
Like I said, none of our current systems are structured for this, and we'll probably have to figure things out from the ground up.
The centuries of literature we have on this contrasts hands-on practice with theory: not actually doing the thing, but studying how other people do it, in order to gain knowledge that will be helpful when you get your hands into it.
This is different: this is like having a slave do it for you.
We know from history that the slave owners didn't know how to do the work. E.g. kings and feudal lords didn't know how to herd animals or raise grains, etc.
Pencil and paper exams, taken in person with all electronic devices prohibited.
Edited to add: I think this is worth trying, but not nearly sufficient. I would not be surprised if all we see is that grades plummet because until the pen-and-paper tests the students have just been winging it with AI.
https://www.ed.gov/about/homeroom-blog/addressing-grade-infl...
https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/grade-infla...
You can build muscles by digging a field by hand but most people commercially use tractors. And operating tractors is a skill but a different one.
I imagine it'll go like that with AI. People will use it and learn the skill of using AI.
I mean you can learn the skill the machine does if you want like learning to write machine code rather than using a compiler but there may be a limited number of people doing that.
For instance, what we're seeing with pure vibe-coding is that even the best models make small mistakes, usually in the architecture but often in even lower-level abstractions, that compound over time resulting in unmanageable complexity. Senior engineers are able to spot and fix these issues early based on intuition, but that intuition has come from a lot of hands-on experience.
Using AI for a given skill is becoming a separate skill in itself, for sure. But this still requires having an understanding of the original skill itself.
I think this requirement won't change until we have super-intelligence, where AI is consistently much better than humans, i.e. beyond AGI. Because even at human-level performance, the only human that can verify an expert's work is another expert.
Our only value in an LLM dominated world is the ability to handle the situations that the LLMs can't. Those who let their skills and critical thinking atrophy (or never built them in the first place), well, they're simply not going to make it. Shepherding LLMs is not a difficult skill to acquire and isn't going to be enough to let us maintain our value.
Have you met a farmer? Most farmers are strong as all hell.
One of the most impactful things in my career was watching Simple Made Easy by Rich Hickey
our industry is part engineering | part art (i.e having taste) - A.I doesn't have taste (hence why vibe coding) doesn't work - the art of engineering is reducing the amount of code you've to write
it's not about saying YES to every feature - but saying NO and shipping the most impactful feature in the smallest amount of time. sometimes it's about stepping back to relearn so you can do things the right way.
whereas AI is about producing the most amount of code possible - which is the very antithesis of Software Engineering
I would argue that it's _scaling_ software development?
Making it so that you can create bigger programs: that accomodate more contributors, more requirements, faster, with more features, while being more correct, etc, without everything collapsing into spaghetti and chaos?
Historically, keeping a close eye on lines of code spent helped a lot along most axes. Finding ways to keep "code spent" down will remain very valuable but I don't think it's the _only_ way to scale?
Along the way we've developed architecture conventions, useful interfaces, test practices, standards, protocols, plugins & extension points, package repositories, etc. There are also social technologies like mailing lists, SIGs, bdfls, modern project & product management, etc etc.
To the extent that simplicity is measurable (less LoC spent, less code coupling, less cyclomatic complexity) it seems like it can be addressed as an optimisation problem and automated.
In fact, this is nothing new, and even encoded as a requirement for many professions like lawyers and doctors: to maintain their licenses, they are required to take hours of "professional development" every year or so to keep their skills up-to-date.
This process is regularly gamed, of course, but I suspect with AI people won't have that luxury.
The same ethos makes sense with AI, it's just that every company is trying to avoid paying that training tax. Why turn a junior into a senior yourself if you can get the competition to pay for it instead.
Kraft 1977 Programmers and Managers talked about this if I recall. Still the best alternate take on our industry I have ever read.
There seems to be some nonsensical belief that there exists this endless stream of positive NPV projects to take. No... reality is not like that.
I have never once told my manager “it would be really nice to have a few junior developers. It would really help us get this project done on time”. They do “negative work”.
Yes not having juniors become seniors is an industry problem. But my goal is to reach my company’s quarterly and anual goals - not what’s going to happen 10 years from now.
That leads to my second point, in second tier cities, you see comp go from around $80K —> $115K -> $150K —> $175K, junior -> mid (pull well defined tickets off a board) -> Senior (leads larger initiatives) -> Senior+.
For instance look at what Delta airlines pays based on Atlanta.
https://www.levels.fyi/companies/delta-air-lines/salaries
Why hire a junior at $80K when you can poach a former junior now mid level ticket taker for $115K?
[1] after pivoting slightly to cloud + app dev customer facing/hands on keyboard consulting, I’m at a new plateau that’s higher.
I have. A good junior can do in a week what a senior with domain knowledge can do in a half day, with only an hour of mentoring along the way. This isn’t a great exchange rate per dollar (juniors are cheaper than seniors, but not that much cheaper) — but seniors with domain knowledge are a finite resource, you can’t get more of them for love or money, while juniors are fresh-minted every semester. The cheapest way to shipping may not go through juniors, but the fastest way usually does; and that’s completely ignoring the HUGE side benefit of building seniors “the hard way,” which is still easier than hiring.
But you don’t build seniors, you build capable mid level ticket takers who jump for more money at the first opportunity.
Even when I was working at AWS as a mid level/L5 in the Professional Services division (lower title/lot more money), I was the one who was responsible for my “workstream” on larger projects. I couldn’t say “that’s not my fault. Blame the new L4 junior consultant who just got out of the internal boot camp for new grads”.
Now that I have moved back up to a more senior position in consulting, if a project I’m leading goes sideways, I can’t tell the customer that it’s not my fault, it’s the fault of the workstream leads and the workstream leads can’t tell me, it’s the fault of the more junior consultants who work under them. They will never talk to the client. The people under the workstream leads may not even speak English.
And that’s not meant to be an insult. The workstream leads have to he able to speak passable English and they can work with people under then who only speak Spanish.
That might not be YOUR choice, it's still a choice being made at the company you work for.
You’re niavely making a moral argument as if anything about corporate America is moral.
Can you make an argument based on numbers? Every single argument I make to leadership has to have a business case
Japanese companies for example usually care more about long term. This is why US car makers like GM fire workers when business goes down, then need to rehire and potentially re-train workers. Toyota on the other hand doesn't fire workers, instead use their time for training when the business goes down. Guess which company is struggling and which one is the world leader?
So to get back to your leadership: if they only care about the next quarter, then sure no number will convince them. The company might be dead in a few years but they don't care.
Don't worry, just leave all your problems for someone else to fix. I'm sure that won't have any lasting consequences at all.
I give a company 40 hours a week and all of my 30 years of industry experience and they give me money (and in a former life RSUs)
“Whoever said money can’t solve your problems Must not have had enough money to solve them”
(Partially joking, I make the same post BigTech as a “staff consultant” as an L5 I did mentor as an intern and when they first came back as an L4. Nothing eye popping. But decent)
Now at my 45 years, I couldn't care less for whatever grand objective the current company I work for has. I exchange my knowledge and time for hard cash, and let the owners , ceo and whatnot run with their grandiose vision.
I only want to be left alone.
We all get here. It's funny when we turn back.
Once directors and CxOs know that you are completely aligned with the business goals and ignore everything else that “doesn’t make the beer taste better”, they trust your judgement and basically leave you alone.
Obviously that hasn't historically been true, else there wouldn't be any senior developers as companies would have wised up to that and nobody would hire them as juniors.
- Not everybody is a job hopper (even in Silicon Valley one sees that most junior FAANG devs stick around for a good while).
- The HR department is absolutely going to give junior developers that pass the cut after a year or so a market rate raise.
- In limited hiring periods, they'd be grateful to have the chance to stick around, while in bullish "boom" periods companies can afford to spend to keep people, expand and give them bigger roles, and so on. It's in the in-between that it becomes more problematic, but now we're in a "limited hiring" era.
>Yes not having juniors become seniors is an industry problem. But my goal is to reach my company’s quarterly and anual goals - not what’s going to happen 10 years from now.
That's how companies fail.
It's also not a good strategy at the personal level. If you command more devs, you get more leverage.
> The HR department is absolutely going to give junior developers that pass the cut after a year or so a market rate raise.
This is also not true from small companies to FAANG - see “salary compression and inversion”
> That's how companies fail.
The company failing in the long term is really not any current employees main concern unless you are a founder if the average tenure is 3-5 years. Even the stock market doesn’t care about the long term viability of a company.
BigTech for instance can afford dead weight. Amazon has an internship program and for those who come back or through their non traditional programs for their internal consulting division (AWS Professional Services) they have a 3 (6?) month training program.
In ProServe at least (former employee) even for their l5/L6 employees, they have the 3 month training program - “AWSome Builder” where you simulate a customer project and have to pass.
After leaving AWS and being hired as a staff consultant by a third party company, they put me on a plane two weeks in to meet with a customer. They don’t even hire less than senior+ people in the US.
That counts temps, people who weren't a good fit and were let go early after hiring, mass layoffs, and mixes mixes startups and FAANG and consulting churn, none of which is the typical corporate IT worker scenario, and all of which bring the average down (but are not "hopping").
Corporate IT, government IT, smaller SMEs, and stable SaaS, have higher averages.
Corporate IT, government IT, smaller SMEs, and stable SaaS, have higher averages.
You're making the stronger claim.
Experience says most absolutely don't jump ship every 2-3 years in the kind of companies I mentioned. Now, if you think companies are playing a rotating musical chairs game and are majority new people every 5 years, ...
I can’t go to management - who when I was working as a tech lead pre 2020 - were CTOs, Directors, founders and at times having to talk to the PE owners without solid data.
Your benefiting from the work of peopke who did worry about what will happen 10, or even 20 30 years down the line. People like you are why the rides gonna stop
In fact the only reason I got my job there was because a recruiter reached out to me about an SDE job on the retail side. There was no way in hell that I was going to sell my big house in the burbs of Atlanta (at the time), uproot my life after Covid and work for Amazon. I knew what I would be getting into.
She then told me about a “permanently remote”,”field by design” role at AWS ProServe. I was like sure why not?
Not that I’m a line level manager - I’m just a high level IC who is at the same position on the org chart as a line level manager
I worked for two companies as a lead and the first thing I did to make things better is - nothing. I asked questions and understand the why.
But what company have you worked for that you only have to understand code? There is code, underlying architecture, dependencies between teams, database schemas and the politics?
I also never said anything about only understanding code. I explicitly mentioned politics. But understanding your particular companies politics isn't necessarily helpful, probably because the politics are shit. So, if you go from one toxic company to another company, you might make it more toxic.
Junior people also tend to have the humility to know they’re inexperienced and lacking insight, so they tend to be more willing to “follow” the senior employees rather than attempt to leave their mark as a leader. “Too many cooks in the kitchen” and all that jazz.
I see a lot of Sr engineers get very frustrated by how much time they have to spend helping Jr engineers. But, that’s the job, or at least a big part of it.
Or at least it was.
If at that point it's clear (to me) the situation is not salvageable, it's a management issue, I've done my job.
Sure there’s a wide range of skills and you can’t just hand any task to anyone and expect it to work out but some fresh collage graduates are more capable than the average person with 5 years of professional experience. At the other end you need to focus on whatever they actually are capable of doing. 40+ hours a week can slowly expand even an extremely narrow skillet as long as they’re a hard worker.
1 new Jr every 2 years works quite well for a team of 7+ developers.
But with a team of 7, I can’t believe that giving them all a Claude Code subscription wouldn’t be much cheaper and much more productive than hiring a junior. A junior though with AI is more dangerous than a junior without.
I’ve seen many people stick around for a surprising amount of time while severely under compensated. I suspect that’s why HR does it.
I find AI tools make everyone better at exactly the same kind of problems, which means a larger percentage of what’s left over is more cheaply done by Jr’s working without AI assistance.
Fascinating. I am finding the exact opposite, like complete 180
Physical labor may be a tiny fraction of what a team of developers do, but I’ve seen what amounts to several thousand dollars spent on that kind of silly task because teams leverage the tools they have.
The point obviously still stands, and no I am not suggesting using Jr devs for physical labor alone is worth adding them to the team. Rather that “Work” includes a very wide variety of tasks that need to get done.
this part I find fascinating. most places I worked (30 years in, 10 as a contractor so quite a lot) the distinction between Jr, Mid and Sr falls exactly into the kind of works that they do. I, as a Senior, often work on hard shit, Jrs are not (yet) entrusted with those problems and work on entirely different set of problems. I cannot compute how AI makes everyone better at exactly the same kind of problems, problems I am solving today few people on my team are working on and then same goes down the "pyramid"
Automation always runs into diminishing returns for similar reasons. If 99.99% of a workload is embarrassingly parallel, what remains becomes important once you can throw enough cores at the problem.
You’ll see a guy in a multi million dollar crane lifting multi ton objects and then people using ropes attached to that same load for final positioning etc. What you don’t see is people using ropes to lift bricks 20 stories by hand as the crane lifts multi ton pallets of bricks as automation is taking care of that kind of task.
Junior devs are by your own explanation not useless. They are the most important human investment in your project.
We havent dont it and I never seen something like that.
I was useful as a junior too.
I almost certainly took more time from my seniors than I saved them, and the juniors I've mentored have mostly done the same for me.
Rather because you want them to go away, because management conveniently forgot to reduce your load to account for time spent on mentoring.
I bet you a senior could do with one good prompt to Claude what a junior would take a day to do before AI - and take time away from the senior.
It would still be a waste of a seniors time to write that prompt. They should have more important things to spend time on
If you have to be that detailed anyway - you might as well use AI.
I'm very sorry for you that you think that way
I’m not going to work as a charity and neither are any of my coworkers. We are all here to exchange labor for money.
Even when I was at a startup before 2020 and I did have the ear of the CTO and the founders I knew my ultimate mission was to do what was needed to get acquired and before that I knew exactly what my mission was when k was hired to lead the tech initiatives as we were acquiring companies “find efficiencies” and go public.
Or do you think I could have convince anyone of anything as an L5 at AWS in the middle between architect at a startup and my current company?
It's about money, and the actual solution would be to lower pay at senior level and give it to juniors, with some lock in agreed by the junior in exchange for this grace.
I doubt the vast majority will agree to this.
Meanwhile, I've never once seen a coding agent give a brilliant solution or design to just about anything, and anything with the barest whiff of undefined-ness will simply zero in on your existing biases.
This whole thread reads like absolute insanity to me. I love getting new junior devs. They do great work.
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/boto3/latest/
Or do the same for IAC - same surface area - and use Terraform on one project, CloudFormation on another, and the CDK on a third and to generate code for you when you give them the correct architecture. It took me a day to do that before AI depending on the architectural complexity and I know AWS well (trust me on this). How long would it take me to delegate that to a junior dev? It took ChatGPT 2 minutes before I started using Claude just by my pasting a well labeled architecture diagram and explaining the goal.
It took me about 8 hours total to vibe code an internal web tool with a lot of features that if I had estimated before AI, I would have said a mid level developer would have taken two weeks at least. It wasn’t complex - just a CRUD app with Cognito authentication. How long would it have taken a junior developer?
I'd gladly take a junior dev to do any of that work there, because they can think for themself and not hang onto any bias you unknowingly build into the prompt like it's a religion.
https://www.levels.fyi/blog/swe-level-framework.html
Junior - everything is spelled out in excruciating detail, the what and the how. They are going to be slow, not know best practices, constantly bug other developers and you srs going to have to correct them a lot.
Mid level developer - little ambiguity on the business case or their role in it. They are really good coders in their domain. They have the experience to turn well defined business requirements into code. You don’t have to explain the “how” to them just the what. They should have the ability to break an assigned “epic” based on the business requirements to well defined stories and be a single responsible individual for that Epic maybe working with juniors depending on the deliverable or other mid level developers.
A senior developer works at a higher level of ambiguity and a larger scope, the business may know they want something. But neither the business or technical requirements are well defined. Think of a team lead.
Senior+ - more involved with strategy.
If I have to define everything in great detail anyway, why not just use AI? It can do it faster, cheaper, more correct and the iteration is faster. I would go as far as saying in my recent coding agent experience, a coding agent is realistically 100x faster than a junior developer since you have to give both of them well defined tasks.
My experience with Claude code and codex recently is that even the difference between a mid level developer and a coding agent is taste when it comes to user facing development, knowing funky action at a distance, and knowing the business, with a mid level developer you can assume shared context and history with an ability to learn.
So again, why do I need to hire a junior developer in the age of AI?
As an Entry Level Engineer, you’ll be expected to develop and maintain lower complexity components under the guidance and tutelage of more experienced team members.
> If I have to define everything in great detail anyway, why not just use AI?
You don't have to define everything. And to do so is detrimental to their growth. If you're their mentor, you're supposed to give them problems, not recipes. And guidance may be as little as an hint or pointing them to some resource, not giving them the solution outright. The goal is not to get a problem solved (that's just a nice-to have), the goal is to nuture a future colleague.
Why should I hire a junior who doesn’t know the what or the how. Instead of hiring a mid level developer who could be an excellent developer who can turn business requirements into code and is more than likely better at certain things than I am since they live and breathe it everyday and can both do the work without supervision and can offer valuable advice and say something that might convince me that I didn’t think things clearly?
Reminding you that the difference above a mid level developer and a “senior”/“senior+” is scope and ambiguity not necessarily technical depth in one area.
What does a junior developer bring to the table that I should use my open req on?
I'm not saying you should. It's the business model that will answer that question. But the traditional wisdom was that juniors are not costly and have few obligations tying them down. And juniors don't stay junior.
And some may know the what and the how, at least technically. What they may lack may be just how to develop their skills further to be useful in a professional settings. It's easy to learn programming languages, tools, libraries and frameworks when you have a lot of free time. And they're not asking to be your protégés, you're just training them to be useful for your team.
1- You need a ton of internal knowledge so it doesn't really matter what they know past the basics.
2- Testing gets expensive with seniors
3- You can't get mid-senior level employees you like. I see very often companies having really high requirements for hiring leading to the only candidates passing being friends of employees. Juniors pass easier via the 'he's motivated to learn' path.
4- Juniors bring a motivation with them. Seniors tend to generally care less so a couple of energetic juniors can get them moving a bit quicker. Especially if you find a good one, since a senior really doesn't want to get outperformed by a fresh graduate. Also, since they usually suck at politics, it's easier to prod them about why things aren't working than the seniors who've played the blame game for 20 years and have perfected the art of dodging responsibility.
The long-term effects are going to be much like the effect of the software industry turning away from juniors: total collapse. When you have no workforce, you'll do no work - hell, there is just...nothing, nonexistence, no consumers either. But the fertility bust operates on a longer timescale (I think the software industry will start feeling the dearth of juniors in ~5 years, the economy as a whole won't feel the dearth of children for ~5), and it's far more fundamental. Rather than one industry disappearing, all industries will disappear, likely refactored into something that looks far different.
It also reminds me of those ecological predator/prey/locust models that I studied in calculus class, where population dynamics for many species have a tendency to overshoot the carrying capacity of the environment. Each individual in the population makes their own reproductive & survival decisions, but the sum total of them leads to population collapse and a near total extinction, followed by recovery once the survivors find resources abundant again.
It's a negative (from the perspective of reproduction) confluence of both social and economic developments.
E.g. the death of the traditional gender roles has inevitably reduced birth rates - for multiple reasons to boot. Because on the one hand, the women has am easier time not to commit and just sleep around, consequently becoming uninteresting to men that would've preferred to make a family... But also because biologically, men are more attracted to demure women, which on average will ultimately remove even more attraction, consequently removing even more likelihood of families being built.
But that's once again only one factor, you got others too... Like stagnant wages, which force younger people too abstain from making a family simply because the financial situation doesn't allow for it. And if it happens anyway, it's more then likely to end in a broken family instead of something positive
Another factor is the availability of choice. Dating apps are available, statistically women all try to get into a relationship with the same 1% of men - who sleep around and cause toxicity all around. The remaining 99% become bitter and consequently... Are even less attractive to women.
Just to be clear, in case someones brain has completely rotten through and interprets any blame into my comment: neither sex is responsible for this. Our society just decided to move on from gender roles, for supposedly economic reasons.
The consequences are felt both for women and men, with both feeling less valued and miserable on average. Which understandably makes them less attractive to the other sex again.
Still not a full list of factors at play btw, there is also the builtup of micro plastics in the men's balls, harming sperm production along with normalization of pornography, reducing the sexual frustration of people and consequently making them less driven to find partners. There is also the influencer industry, purposefully encouraging para social relationships, satisfying the social urges of a lot of people, consequently reducing the likelihood of them seeking out friendships... Reducing the likelihood of meeting other people and thus reducing the likelihood of getting a natural relationship through that.
Third places have also mostly vanished, likely related to multiple of these effects to etc pp
As a regular 30s dude, definitely not 1% by any measure, app dating had its rough spots but generally was a good time, I experienced no bitterness.
Instead I met a bunch of interesting people and found my partner. We now own a house and are talking about kids.
The real toxicity here is the idea that women at large are somehow responsible for anyone's lack of dating success.
For anyone reading this who might be dating and feel disheartened- the hard truth is that you have two options: you can either blame the group of people you're trying to attract for having faulty preferences, or you can reflect and work on yourself and your approach. Only one of these has any chance of helping you.
One thing I do agree with you on: bitterness is extremely unattractive.
That being said as five foot four guy, the chance of me having any success on a dating app at the time from everything I know would have been basically 0 no matter what. “Working on myself” would have done no good. I was objectively in great shape as a part time fitness instructor and I just run my first (and last) two half marathons before I met my wife.
Some guys just haven’t won the genetic lottery to succeed on dating apps. Again I’m not bitter as one of the relatively few straight male fitness instructors, it wasn’t hard to date during my first stint of singleness
Dating is kinda like founding a startup or getting a job, in that you have to kiss a lot of frogs, but you only need to succeed once. The point's to eliminate all the unsuitable prospects in the pool and find the one that is a match for you.
That's true, but dating apps are still a pretty toxic technology. It's got kind of a McNamara fallacy baked into it, they encourage users to setup filters on easy-to-quantity aspects (height, age) in a fairly thoughtless way, and entourage superficial, consumeristic evaluations. Most people would probably benefit from IRL interactions, which present a more holistic picture.
I think this is a very likely outcome. We aren't going to get continued population growth next generation; a significant number of the people needed for it will never be born. This is going to have ripple effects across wide swaths of political and economic organization. But you'll have pockets of population that basically barricade themselves off from the wider economic world and insulate themselves from its collapse, and then the people within them, along with whatever form of social organization they happen to adopt.
But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders
https://www.insidehook.com/culture/story-tom-toro-new-yorker...
Or in other words, they've been priced out of the market.
If there will be no sociofinancial niche for their children to inhabit this is in fact the rational course of action. See also: South Korean current birth rates.
For anyone wondering, the South Korean birth rate is currently ~0.7: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-born-per-woman?c...
This doesn't really work either. Having been loved by an attachment figure (usually a parent) seems to be essential to normal psychosocial development. Without it, kids can't really form bonds or groups. They never learn to trust, and without the ability to trust, they can't work in concert with other people. They end up violent and criminal.
If you tried to do this society-wide, society would collapse. Everybody would simply try to grab what they could and kill everybody else.
I think I've seen this movie and it does not have a happy ending.
Are you gonna suggest that State enforces procreation too?
This "answer" that you are saying is this close to being an Eugenics project. A govt. which has its officers arrest/detain babies because of their race and you are saying that these are the people that the babies should be left?
5-year-old boy among four students detained by ICE, according to school leaders : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwL-OBLC7is
Also consider these people in your answer to be the slaves of the govt. because we live in a free world and yet propaganda can be so effective. I can't imagine what the propaganda can be if State raises the child.
Yes, Instead of trying to make the economy affordable so that childcare can be affordable, we go ahead and let the states raise our children.
Has even the notion of affordability become so foreign that we have forgotten it can exist?
I sincerely hope you were joking with this message and this wasn't the first thing which came into your mind.
> The same ethos makes sense with AI, it's just that every company is trying to avoid paying that training tax.
Last time when a junior dev was added to my team I had a similar thought. But then talking with management I was informed that things went beyond just training.
The company had a social responsibility pledge and understanding with the local educational institutions. They had to pledge to be part of the internship and hiring activities every year. The company could not chose to be fair weather friends and try to recruit people only when they saw fit.
The other aspect was cost. A team made of only senior engineers was costly.
The last aspect was leveling up. Unless the company has lots of levels the team might end up lots of engineers at the same level. And with the inverted funnel nature of promotions it meant some engineers might end up waiting years for the promotion.
So, it was better to have teams with some junior, intermediate and experienced engineers. That way costs and promotion flows were controlled.
Now with AI the impact might go beyond junior devs. I see even the intermediate devs being impacted. It is more likely that companies think they can replace say 1 junior + 1 intermediate with 1 junior dev with AI. Or something along those lines.
I said just the opposite - hire fewer seniors + AI and don’t hird juniors.
I’m now a staff level employee again at a 3rd party consulting company working with small and medium businesses (my preference) after taking a detour in BigTech from architectural roles at smaller companies. My quarterly strategic goals were a combination of what the CxO’s/directors defined and what I defined was in the best interest of the company. None of those goals had anything to do with larger societal issues.
But different people have different ambitions. Some might not care for comp and want to become a people manager. Decent management is aware of this "different ambition" dynamic and try to mitigate this.
Also, this doesn't solve the problem of cost. Too many engineers without their comp based on promotions will still mean costly teams. That's why a balance of junior and senior is needed.
As should have others, which the university education system should have made sure.
The fact that some people come out of 4+ years of software engineering education utterly clueless means that they somehow managed to dodge having to build anything, I think means that they will never get good at any point in time, as they either were very talented at dodging having to build things, and I don't think that talent is going to abandon them, or they couldn't really grasp the basics in an environment designed for just that.
With that said, I think you can see for most juniors, what you can expect out of them in terms of pure coding ability - sure a lot of them have room to grow, but I've met so many great people who were very young, yet were useful from day one.
In fact, if you have the willingness to grind away at some problem, that puts you ahead of a significant amount of the pack. I have had the misfortune of working with people who lacked any demonstrable skill, and had coping strategies for having to deal with any sort of hardship. Getting useful work out of them was a challenge in of itself.
These people managed to get the years in to be considered senior, and are probably dispensing their wisdom 'mentoring' juniors somewhere else, and are no longer expected to actually contribute to meaningful issues.
If you look at the general topic shift on HN over the years it's obvious most people are getting into tech because they want power and money, not for love of tech
I think that is a bit presumptuous, even if there is a hint of truth there. Just because a kid didn't grow up around computers and programming shouldn't exclude them from the tech path or mark them as imposters/pretenders.
I agree it definitely distorts the market because what else are kids to do?
I don't know, I've known kids who can run circles around a lot of seniors, whether it's knowledge, coding chops or just intuition. The reason a newcomer takes a week to complete a task that requires two hours is because the senior has already learn all the ins and outs of the crappy software lifetime processes (usually dealing with half broken build / code review / ticket systems)
Those kids are rasing 3M seed rounds to make AI tell fart jokes or something now. I'm talking about the middle 80% of new grads.
Reminds me a bit of the quote
The manager says "what if I train them and they leave?" And the response is "what if you don't and they stay". Leaving unskilled and underdeveloped people in you organization is a recipe for disaster.
Why train a junior human when I can train a junior robot that I can copy-paste that can’t quit and has infinite margins?
https://htmx.org/essays/yes-and/
Everyone else: we must let the juniors write the code.
Seniors come from juniors. If you want seniors, you must let the juniors write the code.
1) People hearing "an LLM is as smart as a junior" and actually opting for the LLM subscription price instead of hiring a junior
2) The gap between senior and junior in terms of performance has become larger, since the senior devs had their hands get dirty for years typing stuff out manually AND also tackling challenges.
This generation of junior-mid developers will have a significant portion of the "typing stuff" chopped off, and we're still pretending that this will end up being fine.
It used to be a lot easier to find devs that knew assembly and could navigate call stacks through memory by hand because a lot of folks had to learn that to get their job done. Now higher level languages have mostly eliminated that level of operation.
The same applies to infosec roles. It is 10x harder for junior infosec folks than 20 years ago because there are a bunch of skills you need in infosec that today's mainline dev experience doesn't need, but were more common a while ago.
Case in point, I remember working with a partner company's junior engineer on some integration. They needed some hard-coded constant changed and time was of the essence. I told them to change a couple bytes in the elf binary directly. They looked at me like I was a wizard. I thought it was a fairly pedestrian skill having grown up reversing computer game save files.
I think my argument against humans still needing to know how to manage complexity, is that the models will become increasingly able to manage that complexity themselves.
The only thing that backs up that argument is the rate of progress the models have made in the last 3 years (ChatGPT turned 3 just 3 months ago)
I think software people as a whole need to see that the capabilities won’t stop here, they’re going to keep growing. If you can describe it, an LLM will eventually be able to do it.
The average tenure of a person in engineering role is so short that very few employers are thinking about developing individuals anymore.
The actual way this gets approached is "If you want seniors, you must hire seniors".
I'm not sure how this plays out now. But it's easy to imagine a scenario like the COBOL writers of the last generation.
I definitely think this is the case. Almost all software is unbelievably bad. Almost all software gets worse the longer it exists. And almost all software does not meet its business purpose - it's merely contorted by the customers to just barely meet their needs.
> Almost all software is unbelievably bad.
This is an opinion. And implies that software would, on average, be better if businesses made more of an effort to retain internal talent vs hire outside talent. And I think that's largely unprovable.
I think the allure of high TC (150k base or more for entry level) led to many non engineer brained people to enter tech.
Many people can do rote memorization, it’s even ingrained heavily in some cultures iykyk. However they can’t come up with much original or out of the box thinking.
Seniors should be prepared that Seniority will mean different thing and path of getting there will be different too.
Just like there was a shift from lower lvl languages to high level
Companies know this as well, but this is a prisoner dilemma type situation for them. A company can skip out on juniors, and instead offer to pay seniors a bit better to poach them from other companies, saving money. If everyone starts doing this, everyone obviously loses - there just won't be enough new seniors to satisfy demand. Avoiding this requires that most companies play by the rules so to say, not something that's easily achieved.
And the higher the cost of training juniors relative to their economic output, the greater the incentive to break the rules becomes.
One alternative might just be more strict non-competes and the like, to make it harder for employees to switch companies in the first place. But this is legally challenging and obviously not a great thing for employees in general.
And therefore in my experience not every senior engineer would hack it as a senior engineer at a more intense company myself included.
This isn’t a software unique experience. It’s life.
If coding is an art then all the juniors will end up in the same places as other struggling artists and only the breakout artists will land paying coding gigs.
I'm sitting here on a weekend coding a passion project for no pay so I have to wonder.
On the plus side, as a dev with 30+ years of experience, I am commanding a very good contract salary these days. Revolving door companies stuck in process hell and product rot, and cannot deliver new value, so they’re scrambling to find experienced devs that cost a premium. My salary today makes up for peanuts at the start of my career.
I do not want more juniors, because given time they will be my competition.
I have my doubts. One way to think about AI is another layer of abstraction on top of computer languages. Many good application developers never learn the layers one or two down the existing abstraction stack (assembly, etc.).
It will always be preferable to work on an understandable codebase, because that maximizes the AI's affordances too. And then the AI can explain things to you. A skilled human will always have a lot of solid knowledge relating to their hyper-specific niche that isn't part of your average general purpose AI, so humans will obviously have a key role to play still.
- "micro" level code is adequate. A new feature typically works as expected, and code is well documented. But macro level everything's wacky: no architectural consideration, lots of duplication, dead end paths, dead code. Nobody ever took the time to understand the context surrounding a change and figure out the most appropriate way to integrate it.
- there's no consideration for infrastructure, or how the code is run (my world). Last week we ddos'd ourselves after someone implemented a 1/s poll that runs on every open browser tab, worsened when the frontend's reconnection logic fired 1/s with no exponential backoff.
- zero critical thinking... First thing everyone did during that incident was to ask their LLM of choice why the platform was down. Investigating by hand (and my findings thereof) was dismissed, because surely Claude knows best.
I'm too old for this stuff.
I haven’t have written code aside from tweaking stuff here and there in probably 3 or 4 months. Before that I wrote code by hand every day for many years.
I’ve found a lot of fun parts of my new workflow that I enjoy. I still miss being fully immersed in a problem deep in the files… and sometimes it feels like homework reading so many implementation summaries from Claude because the feature spans 4 repos and is too much code to read. But I do love shaping the code into different solutions exploring in a way that is unique to ai native workflows. And I love building agent skills and frameworks with/around them and expanding it out to more aspects of the company or life — there’s deep work to be had that still feels like hacking in the trenches. I get a lot of the same satisfaction in different ways, and there’s a lot of exciting novelty to explore that was previously out of reach due to time and energy constraints.
Also I don’t like our backend stack and I hate React / NextJS to the degree of derangement syndrome — I am so happy that I don’t have to write it and I can just focus on UX, making customers happy / lives easier / shaping the software into better and better versions of itself at such a faster pace.
People who learned good software engineering intimately before the inflection point are extremely lucky right now. Existential dread and the stages of grief have been a part of the journey for me too sadly, but there’s a lot to celebrate and explore with the right attitude.
Since I have been a software architect for the past 7-8 years it feels in some ways that that experience makes using claude code a lot more productive than for my non-architect colleagues, as I am able to steer it much more effectively whether directly in sessions or via custom skills / mcp.
The big issues right now for me are hiring and manager expectations, I changed positions last fall due to mass layoffs and it took me 3 months to find one: having leetcode interviews in the current climate seems completely useless, even more than it was in the past, and system design interviews are so formulaic it also feels like a crapshoot. Plus every job getting hundreds of AI generated applications makes actually being considered in the first place quite difficult.
Manager expectations are also ridiculously inflated nowadays, it seems most action items that come are claude written with fantastical random statistics (if you add caching you can make your backend 98.3% faster!), and it takes so much time to fight this and unrealistic team velocity expectations.
Interesting times, I do feel lucky I have had a long career, but I very much fear the ladder being pulled up even more than it has been when outsourcing because widespread. I know everybody says "things always change, new opportunities will open up to compensate for the ones that are being lost" but this time it does feel different, and not in a good way.
In any case, I think if one wants to continue to have a career in this industry for years to come, it's basically table stakes to become fluent in using these tools.
My son, working in another dev company, reports the same - he basically hasn't written much actual code for about three months. It's a massive change.
Pretty much all software projects seem to peak, and then decline in quality. There are only a handful of senior devs in the world who are actually good programmers.
> Through our software pursuits, the mechanistic myth has spread beyond its academic origins, and is now affecting every aspect of human existence. In just one generation, it has expanded from worthless theories of mind and society (behaviour- ism, structuralism, universal grammar, etc.) to worthless concepts in the field of programming (structured programming, object-oriented pro- gramming, the relational database model, etc.) to worthless software-related activities that we all have to perform.
> What is worse, our mechanistic beliefs have permitted powerful software elites to arise. While appearing to help us enjoy the benefits of software, the elites are in fact preventing us from creating and using software effectively. By invoking mechanistic software principles, they are fostering ignorance in software-related matters and inducing dependence on their systems.
> Increasingly, in one occupation after another, all we need to know is how to operate some software systems that are based on mechanistic principles. But our minds are capable of non- mechanistic knowledge. So, when the elites force us to depend on their software, they exploit us in two ways: by preventing us from creating better, non-mechanistic software; and by preventing us from using the superior, non-mechanistic capabilities of our minds.
> The ultimate consequence of our mechanistic culture, then, is the degradation of minds. If we restrict ourselves to mechanistic performance, our non-mechanistic capabilities remain un- developed. The world is becoming more and more complex, yet we see only its simple, mechanistic aspects. So we cope perhaps with the mechanistic problems, but the complex, non-mechanistic ones remain unsolved, and may eventually destroy us.
Wow, I'm immediately hooked. The book is free online as well to download.
I wonder if he would go on Lex or something.
2 devs on teach team were truly 10x before AI; each has 15-25 yrs of exp on very small teams, great at so many things: code - infra - linux internals - networking - incredible debugging skills - keep up with good practices - great docs - and desire to do things the "right way" - IQ + horsepower.
The other good senior devs may do some of those things.
My title is Senior 2 b/c I negotiated a raise during interview, but am mid-level at best. Now laid off.
Remember this simple fact - if you dont use it, you lose it. The cognitive damage these tools will create wont be largely visible on a macro-scale for a few more years yet. But people are eventually going to realise, all this work (pre off-loading to LLMs) once geared the brain to work in a particular kind of way that results in the generation of ideas for inventions to yield innovations and so on...
Personally Im only strictly hiring people who have not been exposed to the LLM-virus / people who are extremely disciplined with their use about it (which is difficult to determine).
On the other hand, a SE2 was asking me for help with something that was way off track from what they should have been doing. This isn’t a new SE2, but someone who seems the have topped out as an SE2. Anyways, they were not understanding anything I was pointing them towards, so I got frustrated and just gave them the exact prompt to feed into their AI. The AI fixed it for them. They were amazed by the result, but should have been horrified by their uselessness instead.
"it's not x, but y", with bonus em-dash:
> your value as a developer is not in your ability to ship code. It’s in your ability to look at code
"But here’s the thing."
"And honestly?"
https://www.ivanturkovic.com/2026/02/25/ai-made-writing-code...
That's the same style. Plays well there, tho, it seems. Even when an agent writes it.
This is why humanity can't have nice things -- it's not X (because we break them like careless children), but Y (we make cheap crappy copies that push out the good and the real).
But here's the thing. No, actually, there is no other thing. This is our future now.
And honestly? I think I'll go talk that that guy I knew in high school and see if he's willing to train a new welder.
Now anybody can vibe code something that seems to work with a million landmines.
How can they develop the intuition around this given that they don't know what they don't know? How can we review it and help them get there?
Maybe we can figure it out, but I'm not sure it's easy or obvious.
You don't get technical creativity reflexes by using AI. This is technical stagnation in the making. By cannibalizing its own sources, AI is ensuring that future generations are locked-in subscription models to do the most basic technical tasks. This is all obvious, yet we speed up every chance we get.
AI will deduplicate all of this
That sounds beyond wasteful.
But for me it's been a signal that people have no imagination, so they are just burning tokens for no reason.
NIH = more token = good for business
Just look at new math proofs that will come out, as one example. Exploration vs Exploitation is a thing in AI but you seem to think that human creativity can’t be surpassed by harnesses and prompts like “generate 100 types of possible…”
You’re wrong. What you call creativity is often a manual application of a simple self-prompt that people do.
One can have a loop where AI generates new ideas, rejects some and ranks the rest, then prioritizes. Then spawns workloads and sandboxes to try out and test the most highly ranked ideas. Finally it accretes knowledge into a relational database.
Germans also underestimated USA in WW2, saying their soldiers were superior, and USA just had technology — but USA out produced tanks and machinery and won the war through sheer automation, even if its soldiers were just regular joes and not elite troops.
Back then it was mechanized divisions. Now it is mechanized intelligence.
While Stalin said: Quantity has a quality all its own.
In other words, creativity in humans is arguably just as derivative as in machines.
What are your contributions again?
There's also no need to specifically mimic humanity's progress; that's just an accident of survival facilitated by opposable thumbs and language ability. We've already made machines with the base abilities, and emulated the drive (see evolutionary algorithms[0] for example). We just need to put it all together in a few units and let them "loose" to evolve on their own for a while. It took humans ~300,000 years to get where we are today; I'm positive that it'll take machines a small fraction of that. Nothing special.
Even those who do something like art "for fun" do it because it sates an internal need (not all actions need to make sense, because the inherent randomness of evolution is messy and leaves artifacts). Though also the desire to create some form of legacy can be considered a kind of survival: to be remembered by others beyond one's own lifespan.
AI can innovate in synthetic-realm of novel ideas, while real-world novelty will remain untouched.
There are different types of novelties
And if AI was really about productivity they'd be talking about doing more faster with the same workforce, not reducing the workforce.
That's perfectly aligned with capitalistic motivations
There have been lots of instances of knowledge being rediscovered even when it was previously published but sitting on some shelf forgotten. LLMs ability to digest large volumes of data will I think help with this issue.
We will still need to reproduce and verify conclusions but will be interesting to see what might come from this.
What is an idea really and what’s your definition of new?
If i get a LLM to spit out, I dunno, a deployment system written in haskell that uses bittorrent or something, none of those bits are new, but certainly there will be unique challenges to solve in the code and it’s a new system.
Where is the line for new? Is it in combining old ideas? If not then does any software have “new” ideas? It’s all combinations of processor instructions after all…
We don’t need the same volume of developers to have the same or faster speed of innovation.
And conversely if there is stagnation there is a capital opportunity to out compete it and so there will be a human desire to do the work.
Tl;Dr. People like doing stuff and achieving. They will continue to do stuff.
ps it’s too much to claim other people don’t experience creative ideas using AI. You don’t really know that’s true. It hasn’t been my experience as I have had the capability and capacity to complete ideas on my back burner for decades and move onto the next thing.
At minimum, our current generation of leaders will have to get much better at managing resources and building people up. We have to up our games and build environments where the pursuit of deep understanding is permissible. Unfortunately with the current hiring issues, it’s totally understandable that young developers are scared to take time on tickets.
We used to hunt and grow most of what we needed. For various reasons (good and bad) we are now completely removed from the whole process. That allowed us to prosper and evolve by focusing on other things. We took all of what we knew about growing/hunting, grouped it together with industrialization and abstracted it as "everything that happens before". It's a big shortcut - which is a big win for "other things" we may want to do.
AI is a lot like that. But the danger is that AI (or its dependencies - isn't Claude down this morning?) can disappear tomorrow, and then where does that leave us? It's as if all the animals and vegetation were controlled by OpenFoodstock.
I can't be the only one thinking we cannot let that happen.
Also that's not a new idea, that "everything worth inventing/exploring has already been". It's precisely what AI reinforces, and that goes against human nature (and capitalism) as that statement has historically proved.
Who cares if it's derivative slop or a straight up bootleg of something else so long as the number goes up
I wrote a similar post in this thread.
I hired a junior "dev" who literally hadn't even completed an HTML course. Before AI I could not have hired them because they literally did not know how to dev. After AI, anyone with a little grit can push themselves into the field pretty easily.
As with everything in life: you can choose to hard route or you can choose the easy route and your results will follow accordingly.
so what is their value? proxy your requests to ai?
So I suppose, sorta, yes. The expectation is to proxy AI requests while building a mental framework for how software is built.
Hard agree, but probably not in the way you're implying.
It's the difficult things that make life fun and interesting. A life spent going from one easy thing to another is a life barely lived at all.
Funny enough, I started working in 1996 professionally (and had been a hobbyist for six years before going to college). But it was only between 2012-2016 that I was a ticket taker without working with the end user directly - everything I’ve done has been B2B.
GenAI (and working remotely since 2020) has made me enjoy every part of my job.
I mean, I'm a fairly senior dev, and have literally never completed, or indeed really heard of, a html course. Is that, eh, part of your average CS degree these days?
<marquee><h1><blink> welcome to cyberpunk’s j33t website!!!
:) :)
> Netscape has stipulated removal of the <marquee> element from the Internet Explorer during an HTML ERB meeting in February 1996, as a condition to removing the <blink> element from the Netscape
It's like nuclear disarmament treaties, but for annoying things.
Better stick to apis then I guess.
I'm self-taught dev with multiple years of experience. I choose the hard route, even after AI. For me, programming is theory building, so I always choose understanding above all else.
Rock solid understanding of TypeScript, frontend and backed.
I have sent 100s of CVs. For Juniors, Mids and Seniors. Not even a single interview.
I will be glad for your thoughts on the matter.
I wanted to help him transition into a new industry and had the capital and time to let him get up to speed.
That being said, perhaps there is a nugget there: networking with people you know is always, always, 1000% always more effective than firing CVs off. Not to say CVs don't work, but I hired my brother despite it not being in MY best interest. That's the power of relationships.
However, it’s got a lot of downsides too.
“It’s what the LLM said.” - Great. Now go learn it and do it again yourself.
In my experience it is the very rare junior dev that can learn what's good or bad about a given design on their own. Either they needed to be paired with a sr dev to look at things and explain why they might not want to something a given way, or they needed to wind up having to fix the mess they made when their code breaks something. AI doesn't change that.
I can't count how many seniors have forgotten what it means to understand the code they're merging since AI coding tools became popular. So long as businesses only value quantity the odds are stacked against juniors.
If people use AI to generate code they don't understand, that will bite them. But it's an incredibly tool for explaining code and teaching you boring, rote incantations.
You can use AI as a teacher but how many will do that?
The skill of the very top programmers will continue to increase with the advent of new tools.
It is but how do you teach to people who think their new profession is being a "senior prompt engineer" (with 4 months of experience) and who believe that in 12 months there won't be any programmer left?
As a junior, my top issue is finding valuable learning material that isn't full of poor or outright wrong information.
In the best and most generous interpretation of your statement, LLM's simply removed my need to search for the information. That doesn't mean it's not of poor quality or outright wrong.
As a general principle, take advantage of the fact that it can easily generate stuff. If you don't know whether something is true, have it prove it. Make a PoC/test/benchmark to demonstrate what it's saying. Have it pull metrics that you have access to. Add more observability. Create feedback loops (or rather, ask it to create feedback loops). They're very good at reasoning given access to the ground truth, so give them more ability to ground themselves.
They also have fantastic knowledge of public things, but no knowledge of your company, so your instructions should mostly be documentation of what's unique to your company. If it can write an instruction on its own (e.g. how to use git or kubernetes), it is a useless instruction; it already knows that. What it doesn't know is e.g. where your git server is. It also doesn't know what matters to your company: are you a startup trying to find product market fit? Are you an established company that is not allowed to break customer setups? etc. You might even be able to ask it what kinds of questions a senior might ask about how a company/team works when coming into a new job, and then see if you can answer those questions (or find someone who can). In fact, go ask chatgpt:
> What are some questions a senior engineer might ask when coming into a new role to make themselves more effective?
> What are some questions a principle engineer might ask when coming into a new role to make themselves more effective?
> What are some questions an engineering manager might ask when coming into a new role to make themselves more effective?
> What are some questions an engineering director might ask when coming into a new role to make themselves more effective?
I work a lot with juniors, and they all seem to prefer watching video's. But videos in my opinion are a slow way to gain superficial knowledge.
Do it the hard way and read the official docs, it will be your superpower. Go fast over the easy parts, go slow over the hard parts, it's that simple.
>the AI group averaged 50% on the quiz, compared to 67% in the hand-coding group
And why would they do better? There's less incentive to learn because it's so easy to offload thinking to AI.
[0] https://www.anthropic.com/research/AI-assistance-coding-skil...
AI makes students dumber, not smarter.
I am not a Python developer or developer for the matter but Perplexity AI did help me to understand the bsic of Python for API requests and get projects delivery with 94% code coverage and vulnerability free.
AI also reduced the time spent with Ansible playbook generation, but I do know Ansible, I do know Linux, homelab is my hobby so I am not just doing copy and paste. I review whatever it generates and correct it when required.
In the companies I have worked and work, I see developers themselves confessing "I used AI, it works but idk how"!
AI itself does not make you useless, only and only if you used it as a smart search engine.
If you are doing copy/paste, you are going to get so screwed professionally speaking.
Folks are no longer learning and what they are doing, AI can do on its own.
That is making some developer useless.
First of all, developers who only learn to code in a short bootcamp are often not well prepared — but that was already true before AI. In the past, many junior developers were students who were learning programming while studying, not just people who took a quick Python course on Udemy.
Instead of declaring junior developers useless, we should raise the standard: learn how to code properly, how to maintain code, understand networks, and build strong foundations in math and computer science. A well-trained junior developer is still extremely valuable and will always be needed.
Answer: juniors need to work with seniors, and the seniors need to teach the juniors, and the juniors need to learn to use LLMs to learn, not just to do the work.
There are lots of ambiguous situations where a search and human "inference" can solve that AI still can't.
I can tell the AI to do something, it uses the worst approach, I tell it a better way exists, it says it validated it does not, I link to a GitHub issue saying it can be done via workarounds and it still fails. It's worse for longer tasks where it always shortcuts to if it fails pick a "safe" approach (including not doing it).
Funny enough we need the junior to guide the AI.
I stopped doing scientific research years ago, but before moving on to other things, I had, like many others, I imagine, certain problems that I wanted to study, but given the lack of time and other concerns, I would never have picked them up again. I launched Codex, and it managed to untangle old files and analyses, find datasets that I didn't know where they had ended up, launch analyses under my guidance, and build visualizations that would have taken me days, if not weeks, to complete.
Of course, I have experience, I know what needs to be done, and I had to correct some errors made by Codex (I am paying for Codex and Gemini now, but I could go back to paying for Claude too), but I was amazed by the quality of the analyses.
To give an example, I had a dataset of weather observations that I had downloaded from a website years ago, hundreds of time series across weather stations. Codex managed to recover the missing time series, even though the website is no longer active, by first comparing the downloaded data with the data I had, and then also finding a digital elevation model.
Now I will guide Codex in developing a model of extreme events that will allow me to have a spatio-temporal model of extreme events that, without Codex, I would never have had the time or inclination to build.
It takes time to become a junior too. Emerging tech landscape could affect skills and knowledge that is expected from entry level job applicants.
Companies will continue to demand it (I know people working at companies that are literally looking at AI usage as an individual performance metric, puke emoji), and probably 95% of humans using pretty understandable human logic aren’t going to work harder than they need to on purpose.
I wish I had a solution. I think the jury is still out on whether programming will be a dead profession in a short number of years, replaced by technical protect operators.
The worst is, they think they know exactly what they need to learn, and also think they can make good decisions.
I’ve experienced similar things and so understand the feeling, but this is poor leadership. If someone on your team makes it all the way to a code review and still thinks ‘the AI suggested it’, you failed to train them, failed to set expectations and they have justifiably lost more confidence in you than vice versa.
If we analyze the rest of the article through the lens of weak leadership, it sounds less like an AI problem and more like a corporate leadership problem.
Steve Jobs famously accurately called this out years ago [1].
Xerox, Boeing, PC manufacturers (who basically created the Taiwanese makers through a series of short-term outsourcing steps), etc. But there are two examples I want to talk about specifically.
First, one lasting impact of the 2008 GFC was that entry-level jobs disappeared. This devastated a generation of millenial college graduates who suddenly had a mountain of student loan debt (thanks to education costs outpacing inflation by a lot) but suddenly no jobs. It became a bit of a joke to poke fun at such people who had a ton of debt and worked as baristas but this was a shallow "analysis". It was really a systemic collapse. Those entry-level workers are your future senior workers and leaders. Those jobs have never come back.
The rise of DVR/TiVo and ultimately streaming brought on a golden age of TV in the 2000s. It was kind of the last hurrah for network shows that produced 22 episodes a year before streamers instead produced 8 episodes every 4 years.
But what made this system work was an ecosystem. Living in LA, Atlanta and a few other places was relatively cheap so aspiring actors and writers and entertainmnet professionals could get by with secon djobs and relatively low income. These became the future headline actors and senior professionals. Background work and odd jobs were sufficient. Background work also taught people how to be on a set.
Studios still had large writing staffs. Some writers would be on set. Those writers were your future producers and showrunners.
Part of what supported all of this was syndication. That is, networks produced shows and basic cable channels would pay to rerun them. Syndicating some shows was incredibly profitable in some cases (eg Seinfeld).
So the streamers came along and stripped things down. They got rid of junior positions. They adopted so-called "mini writing rooms". Those writers didn't tend to ever be on set. The runs were shorter and an 8 episode series couldn't support a writer in the same way a 22 episode series could. The streamers then were largely showing just their own content so residuals and syndication fees just went away.
All of this is short-term thinking. Hollywood has been both a massive industry and a source of American soft power internationally by spreading culture, basically.
I think the software engineering space is going through a similar transformation to what happened to the entertainment industry. A handful of people will do very well. AIs will destroy entry-level jobs and basically destroy that company and industry's future.
I predict in 10-20 years we'll see China totally dominating this space and a bunch of Linkedin "thought leaders" and politicians will be standing around scratchin their heads asking "what happened?"
- can you add an index page that shows the list of every post ever written? this page requires too many hoops to navigate https://beabetterdev.com/2026/02/
It may be AI has raised the bar, but also that junior devs out of uni are just much worse than they used to be.
Theres been a lot stuff going in the UK that goes back to high-school level stuff. Grade inflation etc.
Its a disaster.
We were just pretending otherwise, now it is explicit.
I bet the number of successful junior devs is going to keep going up while the number of people coasting slowly tends to zero.
Security gets outsourced to audited layers and Ai does the stupid boring jobs of gluing them together. Some developers become more specialised and niche, some pivot to product, some pivot to other areas.
There are plenty of people who joined software for the payout and hate it. Plenty of people who grown to hate it over time.
I've been enjoying using it to figure out toy projects but paying an API and depending on a service to code is very sour. I really hope hardware specialises and local models become good enough. Gate keeping development on centralised services would be a loss for everyone and ripe for dystopian outcomes.
Don't be so dense. It is a figure of speech. We all were useless at some point. Nothing to be ashamed of
Eg. When using Ai Deep Research for hard to debug issues, asking for the why makes for a much better response.
2. Unlike in the past, you can't program the technology without having billions in cash.
I am a Junior dev (graduated in 2022) and I am gainfully employed at the McGowan institute, earning an okay salary, with colleagues who actively use LLMs, but there is zero talk of firing me or laying me off due of LLMs. I personally avoid LLMs for most things other than:
1) Google search which actually works 2) translating MATLAB, which I have never learned (and probably won't ever)
There is a whole team of Junior devs, and actually on Friday I got an email asking if I could refer another junior/entry level. Granted it was for a 1 year contract, but still.
I really do not get this hype.
Invest in the training of your junior employees.
The cost of generating code is now laughable, so that's not the economic value brought to the table by a junior engineer, or really, any engineer. The value is now generated by knowing what code is good code. You're going to have to have talks, book clubs, hackathons, and the like to get your juniors to know what good code is. Do they know what design patterns are? How about good architecture? If they can't name a few design patterns, you're not investing enough.
I worked under people who started as juniors that way but were politically savvy. Or just ruthless. And pushed their way to the top by stealing projects, lying through their teeth, and other such tactics.
They were slowing down progress because their methods involved sabotaging the progress of others because it might make their own contributions shine a little less.
They were the cause of using libraries like leftPad all through business critical code, and cutting anyone down who dared to simply question why.
These things cause ripples. The smartest and most capable staff leaves, what results is a churn of the same kind.
But hey, they get a trip to Mexico every year and burn through millions every two years. Profit any day now.
I think the irony of AI is going to be that it will make the remaining software jobs properly hard again, and implementers (ex coders) will be able to succeed with even less code knowledge than before.
I could care less about why either Claude, Codex or before that a developer was using a for loop or a while loop. I did and do care about architecture.
I’m no more going to review every line of code with AI than I am when I was delegating to more junior developers. I’m going to ask Claude Code about how it implemented something where I know there is an efficient way vs naive way, find and test corner cases via manual and automated tests and do the same for functional and non functional requirements.
I imagine lots of established companies will struggle migrating back to that pattern, but I have to think most new companies will head in that direction, which should let them catch up quickly.
Anyway that's my take. We'll see.
In a world where "Code is no longer a skill," the only way to survive is to stop being a "Prompt Operator" and start being a "System Auditor." If you can’t explain the trade-offs of the architectural pattern the AI just gave you, you aren't an engineer, you're just the person holding the screwdriver while the machine builds the house.