upvote

points

by datavirtue3 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby netcan1 hours ago|
next
[-]
Ok... but extrapolating from this to "whole market" paradigms is speculative.

The (imo) question isn't how you produce software, but what the value of this software is. Are you going to make make/better software such that customers pay more, or buy more? Are those customers getting value of this kind?

The answer may be yes. But... it's not an automatic yes.

Instead of programming think of accounting. Say you experience what you are experiencing, but as an accountant. 6 person team replaced by 2-3 hotshots.

So... Maybe you can sell more/better accounting for a higher price. But... potential is probably pretty limited. Over time, maybe business practices will adjust and find uses for this newly abundant capacity.

Maybe you lower prices. Maybe the two hotshot earn as much as the previous team.

If you are reducing team size, and that's the primary benefit... the fired employees need to find useful emplyment elsewhere in the economy for surplus value to be realized.

Mediating all this is the law of diminishing returns. At any given moment, new marginal resources have less productive value than the current allocation.

reply
upvoteby liendolucas1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
And the day you don't have that drug what do you do? If anything you are training people to become dependent on one or more subscription services.
reply
upvoteby 4ndrewl1 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Except the dev that gets AI done in 5 hours will have a poorer mental model of the code. Whether that's important might or might not depend on whether that bites you in the ass at some point.
reply
upvoteby nvarsj1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Don’t really agree with this.

That dev is productive with AI precisely _because_ they have a good mental model.

AI like other tools is a multiplier - it doesn’t make bad devs good, but it makes good devs significantly more productive.

reply
upvoteby 4ndrewl27 minutes ago|
parent|
[-]
Don't agree - the dev is productive because they have a good mental model of the problem space and can cajole the agent into producing code that agrees with the spec. The trend is for devs to become more like product managers (which is why you see some whip-smart product managers able to build products _without_ human devs)
reply
upvoteby gjsman-10001 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
But does it matter?

If you write a program in Python or JavaScript, you have a terrible mental model for how that code is actually executed in machine code. It's irrelevant though, you figure it out only when it's a problem.

Even if you don't have a great mental model, now you have AI to identify the problems and generate an explanation of the structure for you.

reply
upvoteby 4ndrewl1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
No, but you have a great mental model of the interface between your problem domain and the code, which is where you can affect change.

Outsourcing that to an AI SaaS might be ok I guess. Given past form there's going to be a rug-pull/bait-and-switch moment and dividends to start paying out.

reply
upvoteby kibwen1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
> It's irrelevant though, you figure it out only when it's a problem.

For the past decade people have been clawing their eyes out over how sluggish their computers have become due to everything becoming a bloated Electron app. It's extremely relevant. Meanwhile, here you are seemingly trying to suggest that not only should everything be a bloated, inefficient mess, it should also be buggy and inscrutable, even moreso than it already is. The entire experience of using a computer is about to descend into a heretofore unimaginable nightmare, but hey, at least Jensen Huang got his bag.

reply