|
| ▲ | RugnirViking 5 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| measuring programmer productivity is notoriously difficult. Does james, who shipped 20 features without testing thoroughly provide more value? or does joe, who patched a security hole in that time and avoided disaster? what about jason, who facilitated communication between them, and kept the infra going so their changes could go into prod without issues? |
| |
| ▲ | lwhi 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | We won't be programmers in this scenario. The results will hopefully be a lot more tangible. | | |
| ▲ | RugnirViking 5 days ago | parent [-] | | This also was true for teams, and indeed, businesses. It's not a property of the code itself, its a property of products and outcomes. I don't think AI agents doing the day to day changes will affect this directly (but people may have more time to think about these higher level problems, and increased volume of changes may make the issue more important) | | |
| ▲ | lwhi 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I agree. I suppose, my best guess is that a team will be reduced to one or two people; the those that are left will be judged solely on outcomes. Two (human) brains are always useful; the benefit of a human in these scenarios is that we can be accountable, and that we have a very real incentive to do well and not be fired. The LLM obviously doesn't care in that regard! |
|
| |
| ▲ | pirates 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | It’s clearly Jason in this scenario |
|
|
| ▲ | csomar 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| How do you do that in practice though? You won't know the engineer is a con-man until after you have spent $$ and months into the process. Then you are in the position of trusting nobody. |
| |
| ▲ | Tanjreeve 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Welcome to the problem of hiring and managing employees generally. |
|
