25 points younss 2 hours ago 18 comments

pizzaballs 57 minutes ago | parent

I think creative analysts may have a brighter future than programmers. When almost anyone can build software, the real skill shifts from knowing how to build something to understanding what is worth building in the first place. Creativity, judgement, curiosity and the ability to see consequences may become far more valuable than simply being able to write code.

NikolaNovak 53 minutes ago | parent

Or just entrepreneurs - people willing to take a risk to build something, and effort to promote / sell / hustle. They have always done well as a group, and now they are likely to shine even more.

(I am empathically not one of those so times are getting even more interesting for me :)

zdc1 46 minutes ago | parent

Product design also becomes more important. You can build a new UX every day but your userbase can only handle a new UX or two every year, so creating and validating good ideas and strategies becomes more valuable.

ehosca 49 minutes ago | parent

Taste.

jedbrooke 43 minutes ago | parent

ok, what is taste? how does one acquire it?

qarl 42 minutes ago | parent

I love how every one of these "how do we cope now" essays makes the assumption that the progress has now stopped, and what we currently have is what needs to be adapted to.

Humanity really does not want to look at what is happening.

hackyhacky 34 minutes ago | parent

OK, I'll bite. What, in your opinion is happening? What should we be doing instead?

qarl 27 minutes ago | parent

HA! I'm of the belief that it is impossible to predict other than it's going to keep improving.

If you read this essay, you see quickly that his implicit assumption is that this is now the way things will remain. It is literally insane, given what we are seeing.

> What should we be doing instead?

I have no idea. No one does. This is a runaway train.

I guess being out of control is so intolerable to some people that their minds will not accept it.

hackyhacky 20 minutes ago | parent

Those who have knowledge, don't predict. Those who predict, don't have knowledge.

— Lao Tzu

robofanatic 42 minutes ago | parent

Market

CurleighBraces 35 minutes ago | parent

I feel it's more nuanced than this, at least for now.

It's true to say anyone can build software, but that doesn't make the software good and it's not true to say that's specifically reliant on taste.

As an example I am working with an Entrepreneur right now who has no coding experience but have successfully made a product which they have also already sold to a mid sized company.

However without my involvement and knowing the right levers to craft the AI the software just wasn't performing how it needed to despite the latest frontier models trying their hardest to achieve what he was stating.

At least for now there's still a need for experienced devs.

charcircuit 30 minutes ago | parent

The market decides as it does for everything else.

>When almost anyone can build software, the organizations that win will not be the ones that build the most

It's not possible to A/B test a huge amount of software. The sample size of the real world is not that big.

sublinear 29 minutes ago | parent

Delusional.

Let me illustrate with a similarly dumb question:

When anyone can buy legal forms from an office supply store or make photocopies from books, why pay for a lawyer and who decides what needs a contract anyway?

That was likely a real question that got some debate in the 20th century only further compounded by the internet by the end of that century. Guess what? We still have lawyers.

OakNinja 25 minutes ago | parent

This problem is not new. The new thing is that anyone can understand the core problem they’re trying to solve without involving a dev team by quick ideation and rapid prototyping.

Just as always, it’s then up to the company to prioritize what to focus on - Just like how it’s always been.

* Don't hold onto an idea or prompt output just because you spent time on it.

* Writing code is easy. Maintaining it is hard.

* If it doesn’t save time or generate revenue, it’s just an expense.

* Output does not equal value.

sublinear 19 minutes ago | parent

It's also worth pointing out how many businesses have always had a dev team that can rapidly prototype regardless of AI usage.

They tend to be the largest businesses (outside of SV) that employ the majority of people in the USA. They are also the least likely to really use AI for much other than copilot in MS Teams.

MASNeo 17 minutes ago | parent

It seems like the author is pitching topological teams and responsible engineer concepts, sprinkled with decision governance.

None of that is really new, but it’s the chaos of silos, narrow decision frames and lack of detailed understanding by decision makers which probably accentuates the adoption of new concepts.

jpollock 17 minutes ago | parent

"Years later the line of business asked for longitudinal reporting, cross-domain aggregation, and planning. The tool integrated with nothing, extended to nothing, had no underlying data platform, could not scale, and had to be rebuilt from scratch."

Any project that takes 2 weeks effort and lasts years (since it doesn't say how many, I read it as 3-5) delivering value is a win. That it needed to be thrown away? That's a couple of people out sick.

deminature 14 minutes ago | parent

Building quality software with LLMs is still very time-consuming. The vast majority of people are not going to bother, regardless of how low the bar to entry is, because time is not free. That and making software is not interesting to most people, for the same reason assembling electronics is not interesting to most people. It's a niche interest with limited mass appeal. For those two reasons, the software profession will survive AI.