|
| ▲ | rafaelmn an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| How do you justify your salary given that you're just using free OSS compiler/editor any of us could use for free in your role ? AI just changed how I edit code - I still see coworkers (senior developers) failing with Claude/Codex and get stuck when there are trivial solution if you understand the full problem space. Right now AI is just a productivity tool. |
|
| ▲ | MikeNotThePope 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| You can build things quickly with AI, but you can’t delegate your responsibilities to AI. Once the AI starts struggling, you’ll need to takeover and figure it out. |
|
| ▲ | musebox35 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Please see Ben Evans’ podcast on a good take on this. Coding is just one of the task you do in your job, it is not the job or at least it probably is not. You do not get paid to code, you get paid to make a set of decisions that create value to the company. If this is automated then yes sadly your salary is not justified. |
|
| ▲ | aspenmartin an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Someone competent using them is today a requirement and for awhile will make the marginal utility of skilled workers greater than that of unskilled. The justification is that they are much more productive than they were before. |
|
| ▲ | altmanaltman 22 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're using a tool that anyone can use for $20 an hour, sure. But that's not what they're "just" doing. This is what is so insane about non-technical people talking about code - writing the actual syntax is not really the hard part. What you're saying is like "how do you justify your salary as a NASA engineer when anyone can use Simulink and generate the code?" It is extremely ignorant. |
|
| ▲ | wilg 17 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They don't need to justify it! |
|
| ▲ | yieldcrv 38 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| no engineers on staff and stakeholders think the company is incompetent Coinbase is paying the price for that for every UX glitch, after the CEO was gleeful about HR personnel shipping production code |
|
| ▲ | bsder an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Because the tool will happily give you a "solution" that kinda works for a few inputs. It will happily correct itself when you give it more incorrect tests. It will almost never converge on the general solution that will pass tests you haven't given it yet. This is why AI is sooo good at Javascript and related slop. A solution that "kinda works" is good enough 9 times out of 10 and if some tests fail well ... YOLO and the web page will probably render anyway. Contrast that to using Scheme or Lisp where AI will have trouble simply keeping the parentheses balanced. |
| |
