this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2025
444 points (95.3% liked)
Technology
76388 readers
2369 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"The marketing and salespeople were enthused by the possibilities of working with these new tools, he added."
https://youtu.be/KHJbSvidohg#t=13s
I see the same push where I work and I cannot get a good answer to the most basic question:
"Why?"
"We want more people using AI."
"Why?"
". . ."
I usually ignore these kind of trends. Just meet any required deadlines etc but don't engage too much. The vast majority will just disappear.
Specifically as a software developer I cannot see a good outcome from engaging with this trend either. It's going to go one of two ways.
1: It pans out sooner rather than later that AI wasn't the panacea they thought it was, and it either is forgotten about, or becomes a set of realized tools we use, but don't rely on.
2: They believe it can replace us all, and so they replace us all with freshly graduated vibe "programmers" and I don't have a job anyway.
I don't really see an upside to engaging with this in any kind of long term plan.
2. It’s about breaking the power of tech workers by reducing them from highly skilled specialists to interchangeable low-status workers whose job is to clean up botshit until it compiles. (Given that the machine does the real work and they’re just tidying up the output it generates when prompted, they naturally don’t merit high wages or indulgent perks, even if getting 30,000 lines of code regurgitated from the mashed-up contents of Github and Stack Overflow working is more cognitively tasking than writing that code from scratch would have been.)
It doesn't matter what they claim if they simply can't get the people to babysit the AI codebase or the AIs for less money than the original ones who didn't have to deal with AIs and their output used to cost.
As a pretty senior dev who spent a lot of my career as a contractor mainly coming in to unfuck code-bases seriously fucked up by a couple of cycles under less experienced people, if I was pitched work to unfuck AI work I would demand a premium for my services purelly because of it being far more more fucked up in far harder to follow ways than the work done by less experience humans (who at least are consistent in the mistakes they make and follow a specific pattern in how they work) even without any moral considerations (on principle I would probably just not take a contract with a company that had used AI like that).
I mean, I can see their strategy work for junior devs, but that kind of reducing the power of specialized workers was already being done against junior devs using "outsourcing" as a threat.