> The problem is that the average person doesn't know how what their actual problems are in sufficient detail to get a working solution. When you get down to breaking down that problem... you become a programmer.

Agreed. I've spent the last few years building an EMR at an actual agency and the idea that users know what they want and can articulate it to a degree that won't require ANY technical decisions is pure fantasy in my experience.

▲

nightski 2 days ago | parent [-]

Right now with agents this is definitely going to continue to be the case. That said, at the end of the day engineers work with stakeholders to come up with a solution. I see no reason why an agent couldn't perform this role in the future. I say this as someone who is excited but at the same time terrified of this future and what it means to our field.

I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased). I feel that current models are missing critical thinking skills that I feel you need to fully take on this role.

	▲	jimbokun 14 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There’s nothing any human can do that an AI can’t be expected to perform as well or better in the future. Maybe the Oldest Profession will be the last to go.
	▲	computably 2 days ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> I don't think we'll get their by scaling current techniques (Dario disagrees, and he's far more qualified albeit biased). If Opus 4.6 had 100M context, 100x higher throughput and latency, and 100x cheaper $/token, we'd be much closer. We'd still need to supervise it, but it could do a whole lot more just by virtue of more I/O. Of course, whether scaling everything by 100x is possible given current techniques is arguable in itself.
	▲	mexicocitinluez 2 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> I see no reason why an agent couldn't perform this role in the future. Yea, we'll see. I didn't think they'd come this far, but they have. Though, the cracks I still see seem to be more or less just how LLMs work. It's really hard to accurately assess this given how much I have at stake. > and he's far more qualified albeit biased Yea, I think biased is an understatement. And he's working on a very specific product. How much can any one person really understand the entire industry or the scope of all it's work? He's worked at Google and OpenAi. Not exactly examples of your standard line-of-business software building.