People not using AI will 100% get left behind as sure as those refusing to 'cars' or 'computers'.

There is absolutely not doubt; and it will be impossible to avoid as using 'plastic' or 'electricity'.

The narrow challenges of 'AI aided development' or 'AI aided creative work' are legitimate - that part is real and fair, but it'd be an over-statement to contemplate 'not using it'.

The cyclists who keep their muscles strong the 'hard way' ... will win the delivery war vs. cars!?

The carpenter who hammers every nail and saws every plank by hand 'the hard way' ... will win over the guys using power saws and nail guns!?

No - AI is changing the landscape.

What is 'hard and easy' are changing.

We won't need some skills, we will need others.

It maybe harder to maintain some critical skills, but the upside is obvious.

What is fundamentally missing from this treatise is that 'there is always a hard way'.

Personally - I have never been more 'cognitively overloaded' than ever. The AI 'amplifies' the depth of complexity one can reach, it's just at 1/2 a layer of abstraction above the code.

Driving a 'race car' at the highest speeds - is as challenging - and perhaps more so - than riding a horse.

The 'instinct to push back' is fair and there are innumerable legit criticisms ...

... but AI is just a new part of the stack and it will be as horizontally applied as 'software or the transistor' - it's not reasonable to think one could or should avoid it entirely.

▲

suriya-ganesh 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

this is definitely not true.

with AI agents, you're obtaining a mildly lossy perspective of the code itself. whereas if you wrote it by hand, you'd have a more concrete understanding.

This is not too different from an engineering manager directing junior developers.

The stereotype of the engineering manager who forgot to write a line of code is not wrong.

	▲	bluegatty 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's a fair point, but you're i) radically underrepresenting the broader impact of AI ii) under estimating the power it will have over the short horizon, and iii) missing the fact that 'abstractions are real'. i - AI is going to interject in so many things and so many ways beyond 'helping you write some modules' so consider that. ii - AI 2 years ago was useless for code, you can see how well it works not, and this progress is still very real. By this time next year, the power will be more evident, making the position harder to take. iii - to your point - the real answer is 'abstractions'. We used to write machine code by hand as well, until someone came up with FORTRAN and C etc. Now, people have 'forgotten' how to do that, largely, because we don't need people to do it. AI is crudely that abstraction. You don't have to know a lot about some things. Now - it's very fair to highlight the fact that the abstraction isn't very clean (!!!) but that will come over time. So yes - for writing software today, we're '1/2 a layer abstraction up' - and it's 100% essential to keep an eye on the code, the architecture etc. - it's 'not fully there' but it's better to look at this through the lens of growing capabilities because over the horizon, the argument starts to tilt.

▲

newobj 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

all those words and not one concrete claim made. in other words, FUD. the whole point of the article.

▲

bluegatty 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I made very concrete claim: that AI will be universal and widespread - embedded within all of the technology and systems we use.

It's so completely obvious, that anyone denying it has to be living in some kind rhetorical bubble.

It's truly a feature of 'online rhetoric' like HN/Reddit where people can consider these asymptotic postures and take themselves seriously.

We will use AI like you use plastics, cars, electricity, computers etc..

That's it.

I'm sure there were a few people who thought that 'hand writing machine instructions' was the 'one true way' of writing software, but hey, what would we call them in hindsight?

There are so many legitimate ways to be curmudgeon or wary of AI, but this reactionary stuff is anti-reason. It's not an argument, it's guttural, we should just ignore it.

▲

akomtu 9 hours ago | parent [-]

"Hand writing" your own thoughts is the only true way, though. If some entity does your thinking, then it's no longer you.

▲

bluegatty 9 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes, now that's a reasoned though on how AI will affect us, but fortunately - the AI is not 'doing our thinking for us' any more that 'calculators did', and, that's not going to stop us from using AI.

People not using AI will be about as useful as those refusing to use e-mail or computers.

It's absurd.

▲

akomtu 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Doing our thinking for us is the purpose of AI, isn't it? It's called artificial intelligence for a reason.

	▲	bluegatty 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		AI is a broad term and ML aglos for playing chess fall under that since the 1920s. AI may replace some cognitive activity, it also required cognitive intelligence to use 'slide rules' - which have been replaced and we have not looked bad. It's not a bad rhetorical question - but it's moot in the face of the question of 'should we use it or not'. It will do a lot of things for us - that part is inevitable and unavoidable. We'll have plenty to think about.