Agreed. We are still in a capital crunch so overhiring is out of fashion. People don’t remember the early 90s or the dot.bust when the same things were said.
Kraft 1977 Programmers and Managers talked about this if I recall. Still the best alternate take on our industry I have ever read.
Why would there be a lack of original ideas? People who are born to code so to speak will do it. Information wants to be free as the saying goes. It only takes one time for an innovation for it to be to copied everywhere.
We don’t need the same volume of developers to have the same or faster speed of innovation.
And conversely if there is stagnation there is a capital opportunity to out compete it and so there will be a human desire to do the work.
Tl;Dr. People like doing stuff and achieving. They will continue to do stuff.
ps it’s too much to claim other people don’t experience creative ideas using AI. You don’t really know that’s true. It hasn’t been my experience as I have had the capability and capacity to complete ideas on my back burner for decades and move onto the next thing.
That’s the big scary point at the crux of all of this - you’ve had decades without the tooling to develop instincts. Nobody knows whether it’s possible to develop instincts with the tooling or what those instincts will look like. Creativity takes a degree of skill to execute on and the concern is that we’re potentially graduating people to painting the ceiling of the Sistine chapel before they’ve even learned to sketch.
At minimum, our current generation of leaders will have to get much better at managing resources and building people up. We have to up our games and build environments where the pursuit of deep understanding is permissible. Unfortunately with the current hiring issues, it’s totally understandable that young developers are scared to take time on tickets.
You just need to find a smaller walled garden that can be tended, and not care deeply about having a massive audience and you can still find interesting conversation.
I've seen many Lemmy communities die because their creators abandoned then when they didn't grow fast into thousands of members. This fast growth fixation is so pernicious, if anything web forums and Reddit showed us, is that small communities are higher quality than big ones. Communities in the thousands require a lot of moderation effort to remain high quality.
Enjoy your small circle of internet strangers sharing a common interest, you don't need to become viral.
The gardens that need the most tending, and that will have the most impactful rewards for individuals and communities as a result of said tending, exist in meatspace. Stop searching for walled gardens on the internet and focus on whatever is around you wherever you are. Stop using "More social media but different this time!" as the solution to broken social media.
I found it incredibly rewarding to share my hobbies with people from around the world, with the most diverse backgrounds, in the inherently more walled garden of the early web. That was what the web promised over "meatspace" and I think it would be a shame to lose it.
If anything the open internet seems worse. Every google search for some anodyne home maintenance task returns hundreds of AI-generated slop "guides" with affiliate links. YouTube is the last refuge for real information on this kind of thing. Coming across a human-written guide on the open web is increasingly rare.
I almost clarified that - Google Search is definitely part of that very centralized, corporate-owned web I was referring to. Like what you're describing is exactly what I'm talking about. But there are more and more niche obscure corners of the internet that you don't easily find, where good stuff is happening. People are still using IRC, Hotline, KDX, Gopher, and then there's newer stuff like Gemini ( https://geminiprotocol.net/ ), and potentially-invite-only close-knit communities on Mastodon and Lemmy. Oh yeah and then there's the alternatives to corporate stuff like Instagram -> PixelFed, YouTube -> PeerTube...
After the dot.com, there was the O-pocalypse that terrified me as a recent grad.
- Open source
- Outsourcing
- Offshoring
It was driving the labour cost of an engineer to zero I felt as a young man.
Then time passed, and I learnt that engineers aren't paid to code. Engineers are paid to solve problems for a business.
If you recall, the dot.com bust and 9/11 crashed finances for a few years. When the money printing gun went whir because "Deficits don't matter" Washington, then engineers were in demand again.
Right now we are in a weird situation where money is being printed and it is also tight. Most of it is going to the hardware and infrastructure layer, like the fiber optic bubble in the dot.com. Software will have its time in the sun again.
Take a look at the history of the power loom which automated weaving in the 19th century. The number of handloom weavers dropped two orders of magnitude after the power loom.
What happened last time is exactly what will never happen again because those were all specific one off, path dependent, moments in time.
I think what you are missing is that it might not be possible to stay in business if you can't use AI to solve problems.
Before the dot com bust, I was paid in college to file papers in file cabinets all day at an office. Ten years on from that, the paper was gone, the file cabinets were gone, obviously the paper filer job was gone and even that business that employed me as a paper filer was gone because they were a dinosaur who couldn't leverage technology well and were put out of business by competitors who could.
There is huge denial on this board that everything is going to be fine hand coding on the legacy systems of dinosaur companies. Seems more likely that if the company has so much technical systems debt that models aren't useful, those companies are not going to be competitive in their area of business.
some people discuss these dynamics as sheep versus goats. Social stability was more precious due to scarcity, while goat behavior included 40 armed men killing their rivals with swords (and better if the rivals do not have their own swords). Many, many parallels exist in mammals that live in groups. You might be surprised at the details of how some mammals actually behave in real life!
I find these throws of passionate despondency similar to the 1980s personal computing revolution. Oh dear. Giving mere mortals the power of computing?! How many people would abandon their computers or phones.
It’s not like it changes our industry’s overall flavour.
How many SaaS apps are excel spreadsheets made production grade?
It’s like every engineer forgets that humans have been building a Tower of Babel for 300000 years. And somehow there is always work to do.
People like vibe coding and will do more of it. Then make money fixing the problems the world will still have when you wake up in the morning.
I am not against vibe coding at all, I just don't think people understand how shaky the foundation is. Software wants to be modified. With enough modifications the disconnect between the code as it is imagined and the code in reality becomes too arduous of a distance to bridge.
The current solution is to simply reroll the whole project and let the LLM rebuild everything with new knowledge. This is fine until you have real data, users and processes built on top of your project.
Maybe you can get away with doing that for a while, but tech debt needs to be paid down one way or another. Either someone makes sense of the code, or you build so much natural language scaffolding to keep the ship afloat that you end up putting in more human effort than just having someone codify it.
We are definitely headed toward a future where we have lots of these Frankenstein projects in the wild, pulling down millions in ARR but teetering in the breeze. You can definitely do this, but "a codebase always pays its debts."
Yea, the more things change the more they stay the same. This latest AI hype cycle seems to be no different. Which I think will become more widely accepted over the next couple of years as creating deployable, production-ready, maintainable, sellable, profitable software remains difficult for all the reasons besides the hands-to-keyboard writing of code.
Or drop the price to $20 a year instead of $20 a month and and focus on small software updated infrequently. Software as a service has a dirty secret that it was more service than software. The companies became larded with payroll and most never had great gross margins.
Pretty much. A lot of software is just good enough already, just keep security updates going and fix occasional bug people complain for too long.
But that might require just firing some people because that amount of man-hours is not needed any more or moving them to make something new and no investor likes it
And therefore in my experience not every senior engineer would hack it as a senior engineer at a more intense company myself included.
This isn’t a software unique experience. It’s life.
reply