I do not think this is actually AI: currently, there is a narrative (gradually dying out) that AI will replace software engineers and you don't need CS/Software Engineering education as a result. It's the "leaders" who listen to this.

Will change back in 12 - 24 months.

▲

al_borland 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Agreed, it seems like really short-term thinking.

People still learn math, despite the calculator existing. Accounts still learn accounting, despite Excel and accounting software existing.

If/when it does change in 12-24 months, I think companies need to take a serious look at the people in these “leadership” positions. If the quality of their thinking on big things like this is that bad, and so easily swayed by marketing and hype, then they don’t seem qualified for the positions they’re in.

	▲	diarrhea 7 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> People still learn math, despite the calculator existing. Accounts still learn accounting, despite Excel and accounting software existing. They do, but you need far fewer or none of the original workers whose full-time job this sort of stuff was. Raw math does not matter, but what you do with it. Similarly, you could earn a (modest) living knowing nothing but raw HTML, JavaScript and a bit of browser tech not too long ago. That is no longer possible. Programming and software engineering will be devalued. These occupations won't disappear overnight, but you will see compensation and growth stagnate until equilibrium is reached again. Currently, supply outstrips demand, and I do think it is structural, not just hype. I'm certainly not creative enough, but I currently do not see demand picking up sufficiently; Gen Z is bearish on social media, VR was a bust, blockchain was a bust, software has already penetrated almost all walks of live and lines of work. There is no next big thing (Internet, ...) on the horizon, to unlock the next order of magnitude of demand. There is certainly more work to do still, but it very suddenly does not require the same headcount, but something like 5%-30% less. Lots of the remaining work will be around integrating LLMs into existing software, which does not sound exciting either.
	▲	0xpgm 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		One annoying thing is how long it takes for things to sway back into equilibrium. It's getting quite exhausting having to endure all these major events of the 21st century and their consequences - 9/11 and the Iraq war, the 2008 financial crisis, covid-19, and now AI. But I guess it's better than all out war and conquest as was with most of human history.

▲

rossant 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That's one way to see it. Can't we also imagine that more and more people now rely on AI rather than humans to learn programming (or more accurately learn vibe-coding)?

	▲	jdw64 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Your perspective is valid, but personally, I think humans will do better in this area. The reason is simple: AI only gives you the information it deems necessary and semantically related to your prompt. But humans don't just dig into local details—they give you a broader map. That's what a curriculum does, in a sense. In that regard, I think human education will shift toward cultivating macro-level insight and perspective. p.s I'm really amazed that you're the author of the IPython Cookbook. I found that book incredibly useful. The fact that I was able to work as an assistant to data scientists was also based on what I learned from that book. I'm personally a fan of yours, so it's surprising to see you here

▲

camdenreslink 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I wonder about his marketing channels. If it was primarily SEO, that has taken a huge hit especially for programming related searches since AI answers showed up at the top of the SERP.

▲

threethirtytwo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Even before AI, plenty of people were self taught and didn’t get an “education.”

What I’ve found is that in the instances where I want to learn, ai teaches me now.

▲

jdw64 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There are points I agree with and points I don't.

What I agree with is that things will come back around in 12 to 24 months.

What I don't agree with is that I also consider this to be AI.

In fact, when you use AI, the stratification of input is very clear. In the end, even in software engineering, the quality of what AI produces depends heavily on how you prompt it. And there's no way around it—AI will inevitably do better than most people. It's pointless to say to an encyclopedia, 'I know more than you.' For a human to beat AI, the only way is to dig deeper into the latest technologies, but that's something only scholars who are up to date with cutting-edge academic trends can do. Most ordinary people won't be able to win against it.

However, I think software engineering will continue to exist. The reason is the stratification of input. In the end, software skills might become something like a subset selection technique for prompting within a specific domain.