> coders think that these random text generators are trustworthy enough to run unsupervised, we've moved all of this chaotic energy up a level

But it works well enough for most use cases. Most of what we do isn’t life or death.

▲

timr an hour ago | parent [-]

> But it works well enough for most use cases.

So does the code produced by any bad engineer.

So either we’re finally admitting that all of that leetcode screening and engineer quality gating was a farce, or it wasn’t, and you’re wrong.

I think the answer is in the middle, but the pendulum has swung too far in the “doesn’t matter” direction.

▲

JumpCrisscross an hour ago | parent [-]

> we’re finally admitting that all of that leetcode screening and engineer quality gating was a farce, or it wasn’t, and you’re wrong

We’re admitting a bit of both. Offshoring just became more instantaneous, secure and efficient. There will still be folks who overplay their hand.

Macroeconomically speaking, I don’t see why we need more software engineers in the future than we have today, and that’s probably a conservative estimate.

	▲	datsci_est_2015 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> Macroeconomically speaking, I don’t see why we need more software engineers in the future than we have today, and that’s probably a conservative estimate. Why? Is the argument that there’s a finite amount of software that the world needs, and therefore we will more quickly reach that finite amount? Seems more likely to me that if LLMs are a force multiplier for software then more software engineers will exist. Or, instead of “software engineers”, call them “people who create software” (even with the assistance of LLMs). Or maybe the argument is that you need to be a super genius 100x engineer in order to manipulate 17 collaborative and competitive agents in order to reach your maximum potential, and then you’ll take everyone’s jobs? Idk just seems like wild speculation that isn’t even worth me arguing against. Too late now that I’ve already written it out I guess.