Even at $100/month you’re comparing to a > $10k/month junior. 1% of the cost for certainly > 1% functionality of a junior.

You can see why companies are tripping over themselves to push this new modality.

Just the other day I wasted 3 min trying to get AI to sort 8 lines alphabetically.

Exactly what you would expect from a junior engineer.

Let them run unsupervised and you have a mess to clean up. Guide them with context and you’ve got a second set of capable hands.

Something something craftsmen don’t blame their tools

I was just ballparking the salary. Say it’s only 100x. Does the argument change? It’s a lot more money to pay for a real person.

Exactly what you would expect from a junior engineer.

Except junior engineers become seniors. If you don't understand this ... are you HR?

I study AI, and have developed plenty of software. LLMs are great for using unfamiliar libraries (with the docs open to validate), getting outlines of projects, and bouncing ideas for strategies. They aren't detail oriented enough to write full applications or complicated scripts. In general, I like to think of an LLM as a junior developer to my senior developer. I will give it small, atomized tasks, and I'll give its output a once over to check it with an eye to the details of implementation. It's nice to get the boilerplate out of the way quickly.

Don't get me wrong, LLMs are a huge advancement and unbelievably awesome for what they are. I think that they are one of the most important AI breakthroughs in the past five to ten years. But the AI hype train is misusing them, not understanding their capabilities and limitations, and casting their own wishes and desires onto a pile of linear algebra. Too often a tool (which is one of many) is being conflated with the one and only solution--a silver bullet--and it's not.

This leads to my biggest fear for the AI field of Computer Science: reality won't live up to the hype. When this inevitably happens, companies, CEOs, and normal people will sour on the entire field (which is already happening to some extent among workers). Even good uses of LLMs and other AI/ML use cases will be stopped and real academic research drying up.

Experienced software developer, here. "AI" is useful to me in some contexts. Specifically when I want to scaffold out a completely new application (so I'm not worried about clobbering existing code) and I don't want to do it by hand, it saves me time.

And... that's about it. It sucks at code review, and will break shit in your repo if you let it.

Wasn’t it clear that our comments are in agreement?

They aren’t detail oriented enough to write full applications or complicated scripts.

I'm not sure I agree with that. I wrote a full Laravel webapp using nothing but ChatGPT, very rarely did I have to step in and do things myself.

In general, I like to think of an LLM as a junior developer to my senior developer. I will give it small, atomized tasks, and I’ll give its output a once over to check it with an eye to the details of implementation. It’s nice to get the boilerplate out of the way quickly.

Yep, I agree with that.

There are definitely people misusing AI, and there is definitely lots of AI slop out there which is annoying as hell, but they also can be pretty capable for certain things too, even more than one might think at first.

I study AI, and have developed plenty of software. LLMs are great for using unfamiliar libraries (with the docs open to validate), getting outlines of projects, and bouncing ideas for strategies. They aren't detail oriented enough to write full applications or complicated scripts. In general, I like to think of an LLM as a junior developer to my senior developer. I will give it small, atomized tasks, and I'll give its output a once over to check it with an eye to the details of implementation. It's nice to get the boilerplate out of the way quickly.

Don't get me wrong, LLMs are a huge advancement and unbelievably awesome for what they are. I think that they are one of the most important AI breakthroughs in the past five to ten years. But the AI hype train is misusing them, not understanding their capabilities and limitations, and casting their own wishes and desires onto a pile of linear algebra. Too often a tool (which is one of many) is being conflated with the one and only solution--a silver bullet--and it's not.

This leads to my biggest fear for the AI field of Computer Science: reality won't live up to the hype. When this inevitably happens, companies, CEOs, and normal people will sour on the entire field (which is already happening to some extent among workers). Even good uses of LLMs and other AI/ML use cases will be stopped and real academic research drying up.

AI tools are way less useful than a junior engineer, and they aren't an investment that turns into a senior engineer either.

Yeah but a Claude/Cursor/whatever subscription costs $20/month and a junior engineer costs real money. Are the tools 400 times less useful than a junior engineer? I’m not so sure…

Greenfielding webapps is the easiest, most basic kind of project around. that's something you task a junior with and expect that they do it with no errors. And after that you instantly drop support, because webapps are shovelware.

My fear for the software industry is that we'll end up replacing junior devs with AI assistance, and then in a decade or two, we'll see a lack of mid-level and senior devs, because they never had a chance to enter the industry.

Is “way less useful” something you can cite with a source, or is that just feelings?

I wouldn’t mention this to anyone at work. It makes you sound clueless

It is based on my experience, which I trust immeasurably more than rigged "studies" done by the big LLM companies with clear conflict of interest.

AI tools are actually improving at a rate faster than most junior engineers I have worked with, and about 30% of junior engineers I have worked with never really "graduated" to a level that I would trust them to do anything independently, even after 5 years in the job. Those engineers "find their niche" doing something other than engineering with their engineering job titles, and that's great, but don't ever trust them to build you a bridge or whatever it is they seem to have been hired to do.

Now, as for AI, it's currently as good or "better" than about 40% of brand-new fresh from the BS program software engineers I have worked with. A year ago that number probably would have been 20%. So far it's improving relatively quickly. The question is: will it plateau, or will it improve exponentially?

Many things in tech seem to have an exponential improvement phase, followed by a plateau. CPU clock speed is a good example of that. Storage density/cost is one that doesn't seem to have hit a plateau yet. Software quality/power is much harder to gauge, but it definitely is still growing more powerful / capable even as it struggles with bloat and vulnerabilities.

The question I have is: will AI continue to write "human compatible" software, or is it going to start writing code that only AI understands, but people rely on anyway? After all, the code that humans write is incomprehensible to 90%+ of the humans that use it.

My boss insists I use it and I insist on telling him when it can't do the simplest things.

So you're saying there's no such thing as complex webapps and that there's no such thing as senior web developers, and webapps can basically be made by a monkey because they are all so simple and there's never any competent developers that work on them and there's no use for them at all?

Where do you think we are?