You're not going to get your old job back. You're a prompt engineer or you're fired.
Programming will never go back to what it was before 2026.
Programming will never go back to what it was before 2026.
My experience with LLM assisted coding is that I need a technical hand on the steering wheel to get something workable out it. Otherwise, what comes out is a brittle, non-functional mess that only in the most tenuous way resembles what I had in mind.
The job was never to type the code out. The job was always to take a problem in the real world, and shape it into a model which can be implemented in software. What LLMs do not do is to architect a system of suitable complexity to the scope of the problem. If you give a low skill worker the job of writing the prompts you will first get a prototype. Then a prototype with more features tacked on. Then a prototype with so many features tacked on that it breaks under its own weight.
Software engineers know system design, and can adapt the system design to the scope of the problem. Are we creating a single piece which will eventually expand into a big system, we need to design completely differently from if we are creating a robust stand-alone thing, which just needs to do one thing and do that one thing really well.
If anything, we will need stricter skill requirements for software engineers. Just because anyone can produce code which runs now, does not mean we should let anyone loose on creating the critical software infrastructure of our society.
"Typing" the code was never the whole job, and it can be the easiest part. But "the code" is very much the artifact that is used to generate values. It being correct and easy to maintain lower the associated costs and MAY raise its value. It being brittle and hard to maintain raise the associated costs and WILL lower its value.
So being good at system design is how you target the first case.
And the models won't ever learn distributed systems?
You're basing your assumptions on the current status quo. The models only started getting useful in December, and so we just assume that's where progress ends?
The models are coming for all aspects of software. Schema design, distributed systems, SRE, ... They're not going to stop getting better. Especially when so much value creation and cost cutting is possible.
You assume the contraction of software engineering has peaked. I'm saying it's only getting started.
The skills we have aren't special or particularly hard. They're just boring and mundane enough that they're only attractive to a certain subset of the population. Most people would die if they sat in front of a computer for as long as we do. The demand for our skills has outstripped the labor pool. That's why we've been highly compensated, not because what we do is difficult.
The march of progress will continue, and it's a good thing. It might hurt us to no longer have in demand skills, but the world will be better off as a whole.
The important thing will be knowing what to build and how to market it. That's a totally different skill.
Of course programming never stands still. I don’t think anyone thinks it will rewind. But your second sentence is very odd.
Your extraordinary claim may reflect life in certain companies in SV in the grip of AI Psychosis, but most companies are evaluating these tools objectively - they are certainly not ready to perform as agents or replace humans, and it is debateable whether they are providing much efficiency boost in the case where you try to replace humans writing code entirely - there are definitely significant downsides - loc inflation, lack of context, incorrect code which appears correct, wasted time, burnout of supervising humans having to read the output etc etc.
All the thought leaders like this article jumping to the shining future of independent agents cooperating under light human supervision are vastly premature - LLMs are nowhere near intelligent or independent enough for that.
On the other hand, "you're a prompt engineer or you're fired" just reeks of psychosis. Things will change, they will never be the same, perhaps the profession will contract. But there sure as hell will still be people thinking deeply about their code and crafting it.
Your hypothesis that your job is secure because the models hit a ceiling is based on seven months of observational history.
We've been watching the models get progressively better for years now. It's not going to stop in place.
In some amount of time from now, these models will absolutely require less hand holding.
It's as though everyone with your perspective isn't looking at the overall trend line. You're laser focused on just these last few months.
In just these seven months since Claude got good, I'm at $5M annualized at 65% MoM growth with 30% margins and plenty of opportunity to take that to 70%+. As a dev team of essentially one.
You're in a new game. Stop thinking with preconceived notions and take full advantage of it.
There are going to be a lot of winners and losers with this disruption. Don't lock yourself into the old regime because you grew up on newspaper.
When's the last time you worked as an IC? Is there any reason to take your opinions on "my job" seriously when downward pressure on salaries is only beneficial to you and whatever AI companies you're attempting to start?
"The world will be better off as a whole". Why do you think this? How are you contributing to making the world better with AI? Is there any reason that's not related to making money?
What you did a few years ago will likely dry up as a source of supporting you and your family. There is all kinds of new value to create in the world. Find the calling that is meaningful to you. Go cure cancer instead of plumbing widgets and wizbobs at 100k QPS active-active five nines SLA.
Just don't stay as a gas station pump attendant, butter churner, or elevator button presser.
And it's also wild that you assume what I'm doing doesn't bring value to the world. There's a film being released theatrically in a few months that directly incorporates what I've worked on. I've been a filmmaker for decades outside of tech and that is deeply meaningful to me.
“Directly incorporates” is pretty vague and still seems like it’s financial, but good for you. I hope it’s something that assists artists and doesn’t replace them. Personally it’s hard for me to find meaning in something like that, given the thread’s context of “I don’t even look at the code”. What craft was done? In what way is the movie better now? It’s cheaper?
I won’t endorse glee about anyone losing their job, even if it means people with a lot of freedom can throw things at the wall and see what sticks. Same story as always, it’s just faster now.
You don't look at the bytecode you produce. You don't know 99.99% of your stack. You are a master of abstraction and you always have been. This is just a different flavor of the same recipe.
You've got a tool that will let you execute at greater breadth than ever before. Like what it must've been like for the very first engineers who had access to the internet or the first libraries or package managers.
Job flux is demand finding new salients. Employment hasn't dipped as far as I can tell. There are more exciting opportunities now than ever before, you just have to step into it.
I apologize for misreading and pettily being condescending "in return".
I agree with the way you phrased it here.