The article says that more juniors + AI was the early narrative, but where does that come from?

Everything I’ve read has been the opposite. I thought people from the beginning saw that AI would amplify a senior’s skills and leave less opportunities for juniors.

▲

somethingreen an hour ago | parent | next [-]

AI was supposed to replace juniors and then climb up the ladder with each new release, eventually leaving any work only for the creme of the crop. Which would make the current generation of software engineers the last, but who cares - stocks go up.

Now apparently we've switched to pairing poor kids with an agreeable digital moron that reads and types real fast and expecting them to somehow get good at the job. Stocks still go up, so I guess we'll be doing this for a while.

▲

fritzo 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

No code, low code, vibe code. The narrative outside tech circles is "empowering creators"

	▲	pessimizer 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		It's funny, but what I think is could do is empower creators to hire better programmers and to express their intentions better to programmers. This will require that they read and attempt to understand the output, though, after they type their intentions in. It will also need the chatbots to stop insisting that they can do the things they can't really do, and instead to teach the "creators" what computers can do, and which people are good at it.

▲

pydry 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It also says it makes seniors stronger. That hasnt been my experience.