As a 30-year developer-cum-senior-cum-architect, I think that the Corporate America's take on the role of the Junior Developer is downright asinine.
Can AI do a JD's job? Absolutely, in many cases. Can it do even an only-capable Senior Dev's job, much less a talented one's? Not by a mile, in my experience. AI can replace a neophyte, assist an intermediate user, answer specific questions for an experienced user, and, often as not, slow down or screw up a pro. At least right now (and, speaking as someone who works IN and WITH AI, I can tell you this: it's gotten BETTER at all of the above, but it's not getting BETTER at BEING A DEVELOPER).
The problem being THE WAY YOU GET _NEW_ TALENTED SENIOR DEVELOPERS IS THEY HAVE TO START OUT AS STILL-LEARNING JD'S!
Either:
1. We still need JD's, and still need to PAY them enough to get them to stick around, or
2. AI needs to get a WHOLE lot better at complex tasks, or
3. In ten years' time, the programming field is going to FALL APART, or
4. "Software Engineer" is going to have to go the Tradesman route, where a JD is "apprenticed" to a Senior and have to work their way through Journeyman, like any other guilded profession (electrician, carpenter, plumber, etc.).
You're spot-on, here. The problem being that many of the owners/directors/managers of the companies that would have, hitherto, employed those individuals seeking to cultivate and master their craft have been seduced by the AI Industry's marketing and the short-term thinking that same precipitates.
It's hard to remain dedicated to "mastering the machine" when one cannot find work doing so, or if one does, it's at a minimum wage job. Nobody gets to BE such a master without a great deal of being an incompetent newb first... unless you're suggesting it'll be the double handful of Linus Torvalds of the world, exclusively, working in the field? The genuine "naturals"/"unicorns"?
Please.
I've been a Web Software Engineer since '96. I kept right on working through the dot-com collapse.... yanno, when there was an abrupt supply of 60,000 unemployed developers flooding onto the market, and ZERO demand, reflecting the collapse of investor confidence (justified or not).
There was a window, there (albeit, a brief one) where experienced developers with 3+ years under their belts (keep in mind: this was the early days of Web. 3 years WAS "experienced") - those who managed to FIND work, anyway (myself included) - were literally making less than a Burger King shift lead.
Just saying "try harder" isn't a valid argument here. There's something systemic that's gonna HAVE to change. And SOON.
awesome very informative. Just what I needed
Amazing!
thank you!
Incredible read
As a 30-year developer-cum-senior-cum-architect, I think that the Corporate America's take on the role of the Junior Developer is downright asinine.
Can AI do a JD's job? Absolutely, in many cases. Can it do even an only-capable Senior Dev's job, much less a talented one's? Not by a mile, in my experience. AI can replace a neophyte, assist an intermediate user, answer specific questions for an experienced user, and, often as not, slow down or screw up a pro. At least right now (and, speaking as someone who works IN and WITH AI, I can tell you this: it's gotten BETTER at all of the above, but it's not getting BETTER at BEING A DEVELOPER).
The problem being THE WAY YOU GET _NEW_ TALENTED SENIOR DEVELOPERS IS THEY HAVE TO START OUT AS STILL-LEARNING JD'S!
Either:
1. We still need JD's, and still need to PAY them enough to get them to stick around, or
2. AI needs to get a WHOLE lot better at complex tasks, or
3. In ten years' time, the programming field is going to FALL APART, or
4. "Software Engineer" is going to have to go the Tradesman route, where a JD is "apprenticed" to a Senior and have to work their way through Journeyman, like any other guilded profession (electrician, carpenter, plumber, etc.).
What we are doing right now is DOOMED to fail.
AI appeals to certain personality disorders, by always telling them what they want to hear.
That's the best explanation for the enthusiasm for having algorithms guessing how to solve problems.
The entire point of computers was to complement humans, not trying to replace them.
The future belongs to those who keep cultivating their skills and mastering the machine instead of letting the machine tell them what to do.
You're spot-on, here. The problem being that many of the owners/directors/managers of the companies that would have, hitherto, employed those individuals seeking to cultivate and master their craft have been seduced by the AI Industry's marketing and the short-term thinking that same precipitates.
It's hard to remain dedicated to "mastering the machine" when one cannot find work doing so, or if one does, it's at a minimum wage job. Nobody gets to BE such a master without a great deal of being an incompetent newb first... unless you're suggesting it'll be the double handful of Linus Torvalds of the world, exclusively, working in the field? The genuine "naturals"/"unicorns"?
Please.
I've been a Web Software Engineer since '96. I kept right on working through the dot-com collapse.... yanno, when there was an abrupt supply of 60,000 unemployed developers flooding onto the market, and ZERO demand, reflecting the collapse of investor confidence (justified or not).
There was a window, there (albeit, a brief one) where experienced developers with 3+ years under their belts (keep in mind: this was the early days of Web. 3 years WAS "experienced") - those who managed to FIND work, anyway (myself included) - were literally making less than a Burger King shift lead.
Just saying "try harder" isn't a valid argument here. There's something systemic that's gonna HAVE to change. And SOON.
Thanks for the post. It was informative.