borzi

This is 100% an issue on the side of the senior developers. Imagine saying "these juniors are useless" because you are making them work in assembly, but C has just been released. You are giving them menial work that is no longer required to do by humans. Instead of giving them the task "update these email templates", the norm should be: "create this new service that automates an internal process". They will make mistakes and they will learn - but what they will be doing is going to be very useful and also give them chance to grow the necessary skills for this new era, with the supervision of a senior.

> For example, to add pagination to this website, I would read the Jekyll docs, find the right plugin to install, read the sample config, and make the change. Possibly this wouldn’t work, in which case I would Google it, read more, try more stuff, retest, etc. In this process it was hard not to learn things.

How is this any different than building Ikea furniture? If I build my "Minska" cupboard using the step-by-step manual, did I learn something profound?

Notice how I said "coding", not "programming". Coding to me is "should I do an early return or use an if/else? Should I extract that variable into a function to make it cleaner?". It's about focusing on the trivialities that come with insisting on meticulously hand typing and reviewing every line instead of focusing on software quality, design and user needs.

I can't relate to this anymore and honestly after embracing vibe coding, I'm sick of reading posts like this (and I don't want to personally attack the write who I sympathize with to some degree). Being able to code doesn't make you better than the "plebs" who are creating massive value with a vibe coded tool. I also remember the brief moment of disbelief when I noticed AI could really code better than me, until I realized that the amount of problems and projects I could solve now basically exploded, while the stuff I was previously forced to deal with is now a waste of time - on to better things, as was always the case in human history.

A programmer is someone telling machines what to do - we will be doing more of that than ever in human history. That said, "coders" not so much - maybe its better to identify as a "person trying to help and care for others" than a profession, since the former will always have a place in society.

Great contrarian indicator for when people say that vibe coding is not "real development work" or economically viable/a job in the future - here is someone asking if another person can vibe code something for them that is single file of swift, the prompt could be as simple as "convert this to linux".

I am working on a game side project where I started to force myself not to look at the code (the foundation was written by hand). I just recently launched a big update, all written with agentic code. I really enjoy it and do believe it's the future...plug for reference: https://thefakeborzi.itch.io/tower-chess/devlog/1321604/the-...

Well, the best measurement is hiring slowdown and bankruptcies. Bankruptcies in the US are up 13.1%.

Traditionally, you wouldn't look at the release of a productivity tool coinciding with a hiring slowdown and assume that it's automation causing the hiring slowdown, your first instinct would be that the sector is not doing well.

And what many people don't notice: interest rates are not high.

The 10% reduction in hiring for young workers is entirely because industry (software, manufacturing) at least in the united states (and probably the world) is contracting and in recession, while the services and government sector has been the main sector growing since a long time now - completely due to economic and geopolitical reasons, nothing to do with AI.

Absolutely crazy interpretation:

"At the same time, only 1-7% of all users want to be tracked for online advertisement if asked openly. However, "pay or okay" gets 99.9% of users to agree to online tracking. If more than 90% of users do not get what they genuinely want, we have everything but a "genuine" choice."

If I got to the shop and don't want to buy the product I should just get it for free, because that is what I genuinely want? Genuine choice = I get to choose exactly what I want, always?

Edit, because people seem to miss the point: Just because populist politicians want to legally restrict business from offering a choice does not mean that a "genuine" choice is not presented.

What I'm saying about the "ideas" is that they are entirely based on a delusion which is stated as a fact, but only because the author has a strong incentive to believe the delusion.

Every time I read some statement like "You don’t install software anymore; you ask for it", it's not some typical non-technical office worker making the claims who is actually using the technology in this way. And when I check who is making the claim, it' always some foaming-at-the-mouth tech founder shilling their AI/No-Code platform who is about to run out of money.

Every. Time.

True, it only misses to meet number 3 (it's easily copied and just getting cheaper to build software as technology advances). I think the document also misses to mention saturation of the market, which software is also very saturated and this makes it hard for new businesses to get going...