Why aren't we seeing a premium soft "Software made by Humans"?

hnedeotes an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Because that's not the point. Before you could waste, without kidding, hours in meetings discussing css alignments, flows that didn't make sense but the upper levels were pretty serious about it - "Our QA and test groups say this is of the utmost importance", even when the QA and test groups were the same, 3 or 4 people that insisted on it. I think most people, but at least I, could always deliver things inside schedules (not even set by myself) without a problem, even with those "adjustments" and changes of mind, and doubly so if I could just have the same leeway that now seems to be in place.

Nonetheless, if there's going to be a premium it has to be discernible in any particular way because software for business is always considered a cost. But what really shows this industry is half a joke, is that now there's no issue in giving 3rd party agents full access to inner code and logic, many times credentials too because these systems are being deployed in CIs. And because there's really no enforcement or punishment for leaks, or endangering users in most areas there's no reason for a premium. There's people pushing thousands of lines / min (and I think even the most professional people out there can't honestly keep up with it) although that isn't in itself meaning the overall security is worse than before, it just means that for the most part it's now un-auditable in any meaningful way.

▲

goolz 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The software part is quickly being solved but I honestly believe the more creative aspects will still see large demand. LLMs have a certain stink to their UI, being creative is a hard skill, which AI has yet to master.

	▲	TheOtherHobbes an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Most of what gets called creative isn't creative at all. Often it means "Produce a content product which approximately matches commercial genre expectations with just enough of a twist to stand out a little." A lot of people can do that. A lot more people could do it if they tried to. People who are genuinely out of the box creatives, with a unique blend of original vision, technical skill, emotional and psychological insight, and genre-changing taste, are not common.
	▲	prologic an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		For so-called "AI" to have creativity, we'd first have to work out what that even means for ourselves right? What is creativity in the first place? I'm unconvinced it's just turning up the "temperature" or fiddling with some pertubing parameters. EDIT: And AI is also pretty terrible at being consistent too, you have to work quite hard to get a level of "consistency" that you're happy with.
	▲	rvz an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> "The software part is quickly being solved" There will always be problems to solve with building software, regardless of the way it is written. From code to no-code to vibe-code, to even more code. What we are seeing here is more of the same being built. An example of this is "sandboxes". Everyone was writing "sandboxes" until it there was 1 vulnerability needed to break them and we will keep seeing this with developers vibe-coding infrastructure.