But as it gets better, it'll also get easier, be built into existing products you already use, etc. So I wouldn't worry too much about that aspect. If you enjoy tinkering, or really want to dive deep into fundamentals, that's one thing, but I wouldn't worry too much about "learning to use some tool", as fast as things are changing.
replyI don't think so. That's a good point but the capability has been outpacing people's ability to use it for a while and that will continue.
replyPut another way, the ability to use AI became an important factor in overall software engineering ability this year, and as the year goes on the gap between the best and worst users or AI will widen faster because the models will outpace the harnesses
That’s the comical understanding being pushed by management in software companies yes. The people who never actually use the tools themselves, but the concept of it. It’s the same AGI nonesense, but dumped down to something they think they can control.
replydeleted
replyI mean, right now "bleeding edge" is an autonomous agents system that spends a million dollars making an unbelievably bad browser prototype in a week. Very high effort and the results are jibberish. By the time these sorts of things are actually reliable, they'll be productized single-click installer apps on your network server, with a simple web interface to manage them.
replyIf you just mean, "hey you should learn to use the latest version of Claude Code", sure.
I mean that you should stay up to date and practiced on how to get the most out of models. Using harnesses like Claude code sure, but also knowing their strengths and weaknesses so you can learn when and how to delegate and take on more scope
replyOkay yeah that's a good middle ground, and I'd even say I agree. It's not about being on the bleeding edge or being a first adopter or anything, but the fact that if you commit to a tool, it's almost always worth spending some time learning how to use it most effectively.
replyThe baseline, out-of-the-box basic tool level will lift, but so will the more obscure esoteric high-level tools that the better programmers will learn to control, further separating themselves in ability from the people who wait for the lowest common denominator to do their job for them.
replyMaybe. But so far ime most of the esoteric tools in the AI space are esoteric because they're not very good. When something gets good, it's quickly commoditized.
replyUntil coding systems are truly at human-replacement level, I think I'd always prefer to hire an engineer with strong manual coding skills than one who specializes in vibe coding. It's far easier to teach AI tools to a good coder than to teach coding discipline to a vibe coder.
> you have to account for the fact that AI will get better rapidly
replythat's nowhere near guaranteed
Why should I worry about lacking preparation in the future? Why can't I just learn this as any other skill at any other time?
replyYou'll be behind by a few months at least, and that could be anywhere from slightly harmful to devasting to your career
replyHow so? Why would a couple of months break in employment (worst case, if I truly become unemployable for some reason until I learn the tools) harm or destroy my career?
reply