I think the ultimate fallout will be that software "engineers" will finally have to become "engineers" in the real sense, i.e. professionally licensed and personally responsible for the designs they approve and the software they build, whether the actual code is produced by LLMs or humans.
replyAs costs and broader economic impact and perhaps even injuries/deaths related to software breaches continue to grow, there will be growing intolerace for vulnerable software, just as there was intolerance for collapsing bridges and buildings.
And I'd also at some point expect something like a "building code" that applies to software that will be exposed to the public.
If anything, I see us moving even further away from professional licensing. The field's rate of change was the main reason behind a lack of any professional body, and that's only accelerating. I expect compliance audits like SOC2 to actually get teeth, though, and for organizations to be expected to actually fix issues instead of the usual security theater.
replyNope. The solution is to move even faster and thus break less things via AI.
replyThe "move faster and break things" have been unbundled. SaaS moves faster. Hackers break things.
replyFor new stuff, maybe. I'm talking about existing startups now absorbing the onslaught of AI.
replyI was just being sarcastic.
replyIf you move fast enough, they can't find the vulnerabilities in your system before you deploy the next version.
reply