My experience as well. People worry our profession is being reduced to "prompt engineer", but actually I get the feeling that programming will soon be mainly about designing and building harnesses for specific tasks.

▲

ambicapter 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Personal opinion is that LLMs are definitely not as magical as people think they are, they fill a specific niche of problem-solving, and harnesses are necessary to corral your problem into the niche that they are extremely good at solving.

▲

cruffle_duffle 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The more I dive into this space the more I think that developers will still be in heavy demand—just operating in a different level of abstraction most of the time. We will need to know our CS fundamentals, experience will still matter, juniors will still be needed. It’s just that a lot of time time the actual code being generated will come from our little helper buddies. But those things still need a human in the seat to drive them.

I keep asking myself “could my friends and family be handed this and be expected to build what I’m building on them” and the answer is an immediate “absolutely not”. Could a non technical manager use these tools do build what I’m building? Absolutely not. And when I think about it, it’s for the exact same reason it’s always been… they just aren’t a developer. They just don’t “think” in the way required to effectively control a computer.

LLMs are just another way to talk to a machine. They aren’t magic. All the same fundamental principles that apply to probably telling a machine what to do still apply. It’s just a wildly different mechanism.

That all being said, I think these things will dramatically speed up the pace that software eats the world. Put LLMs into a good harness and holy shit it’s like a superpower… but to get those superpowers unlocked you still have to know the basis, same as before. I think this applies to all other trades too. If you are a designer you still have to what good design is and how to articulate it. Data scientists still need to understand the basics of their trade… these tools just give them superpowers.

Whether or not this assertion remains true in two or three years remains to be seen but look at the most popular tool. Claude code is a command line tool! Their gui version is pretty terrible in comparison. Cursor is an ide fork of vscode.

These are highly technical tools requiring somebody that knows file systems, command lines, basic development like compilers, etc. they require you to know a lot of stuff most people simply don’t. The direction I think these tools will head is far closer to highly sophisticated dev tooling than general purpose “magic box” stuff that your parents can use to… I dunno… vibe code the next hit todo app.

	▲	neversupervised 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I believe you’re arriving at the wrong conclusion because you’re comparing to an opposite instead of to someone slightly worse than you. Will this enable people at the edge to perform like you? That’s the question. Will there be more developers? Will they compete with you?
	▲	keybored 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> The more I dive into this space the more I think that developers will still be in heavy demand—just operating in a different level of abstraction most of the time. We will need to know our CS fundamentals, experience will still matter, juniors will still be needed. It’s just that a lot of time time the actual code being generated will come from our little helper buddies. But those things still need a human in the seat to drive them. It’s disheartening that programmers are using this advanced, cutting-edge technology with such a backwards, old-fashioned approach.[1] Code generation isn’t a higher level abstraction. It’s the same level but with automation. See [1]. I’m open to LLMs or humans+LLMs creating new abstractions. Real abstractions that hide implementation details and don’t “leak”. Why isn’t this happening? Truly “vibe coding” might also get the same job done. In the sense of: you only have to look at the generated code for reasons like how a C++ programmer looks at the assembly. Not to check if it is even correct. But because there are concerns beyond just the correctness like code gen size. (Do you care about compiler output size? Sometimes. So sometimes you have to look.) [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44163821
	▲	skydhash 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> LLMs are just another way to talk to a machine. They aren’t magic. I will still opt for a scriptable shell. A few scripts, and I have a custom interface that can be easily composed. And could be run on a $100 used laptop from ebay.