Did they not think to develop a practical skill in case this fad died off?
That makes sense. Software engineers have gone from being artists (because yes, software architecture is an art) to becoming AI managers. It’s demoralising.
I believe open-source software will continue to provide a refuge for artists.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that code can be art but I was never able to express myself on that level at my corporate jobs. I was always limited to writing code that aligned with the company’s rigid style guide, and never allowed to implement new design patterns that would’ve improved things but deviated from the way things were done in the existing codebase.
Thus, I’m not too miffed about being forced to use coding agents at work because writing corporate-sanitary code already felt like a robotic process before LLMs existed. Personal hobby projects and open source contributions are where we can express ourselves freely and create our art the way we want to. They’ll never be able to take that from us.
Most of my career I was allowed to write code how I wanted. I made it beautiful and nice to read. It was genuinely fun to find the best way to implement each feature.
My final job, I was forced to add semicolons on new lines for each
if elsestatement, even for early returns, remove hyphens from my comments because they were “improper grammar”, put a useless giant copy pasted comment at the start of each file so you can’t even see any code without scrolling, one separate file for each class even if it’s an internal helper class used nowhere else, and use interfaces and MVVM for literally everything, even when it was severely over-engineering (or should I say overengineering). It just felt soul crushing to make this ugly ass code that took forever to write, just because the style guide said so.Then A.I. happened and I quit being a software engineer completely. Telling an A.I. to do my work for me is just depressing. What’s even the point anymore? I still code for fun but I’m done with the industry.
If you don’t mind me asking, to which career did you switch to?
You worked places with style guides? Did… Did you have a real testing environment that wasn’t prod too?
I got taken off a project recently for being too direct about how the rest of the team was just spray and praying entirely AI generated code with no standards or review whatsoever, and they were charging ahead like it was a race to implement features we hadn’t even discussed if we wanted/needed.
If you can’t tell me how it works, you can’t confirm that we actually need it, you can’t tell me the upstream and downstream effects (or confirm they don’t exist), and you can’t even confirm that we even want it to do the thing it only supposedly does, then we have better things to do than go on a wild goose chase trying to debug it when there’s a looming deadline for things that legitimately do not work that we need. Stop vibe coding and actually review the existing shit for fucks sake. If the requirements have never been clear, solve that instead of generating more slop. Maybe update some of the existing documentation instead of having AI wholesale hallucinate entirely new not quite right ones over and over.
Anyway, please tell me more happy development bedtime stories. I need to chase away the nightmares.
Software engineer, here. Yep, the burnout is real. I consider myself fortunate, however; with the skyrocketing cost of AI, my employer has been urging us to do as much as possible by hand lately to cut back on token usage.
I think that’s pretty much where the entire industry will go soon.
Ours is trying to cut everything to the bone to avoid admitting AI is not the future.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so sad.
Huh. Maybe I will have a shot at getting a job… Oh, wait, I have 35 years experience, am over 50 and have been unemployed for 16 months. Never mind.
I gave up the humiliating shit show called a job search 3 months ago, and frankly my last job killed any interest in software development anyway.
It’s all idiots telling professionals they’re wrong and incompetent while blaming them for the ongoing production failures we solved and explained every month for a year but still can’t get the code past review because “it does too much”. 30 fucking lines of code “does too much”. Pompous morons.
We’re a threat of competence, and they’re excising us relentlessly. I will laugh bitterly as I watch the soon to be torrent of fiascos and lamentations these idiots spout while still finding a way to blame software engineers.
I’m with you, MasterBlaster!
It sucks for lots of us, more every day, so at least we’re not miserable, alone.
my employer has been urging us to do as much as possible by hand
Now that is a palpable irony. So much disruption in this space so some investors could profit off of a tech they don’t even understand.
That was my hope as well. But then my employer gave me 75 times the budget without me asking for it.
Yeah based on WYEA’s articles recently I would say that is the case. As providers move to token based billing, trying to find a way to break even, the rising costs will lower usage, which will probably then drive up costs further as the (imaginary) capital has already been spent on the DCs.
with the skyrocketing cost of AI, my employer has been urging us to do as much as possible by hand lately
Meanwhile, my company has forgotten how to write bash scripts… More and more things that could just be bash scripts are being added as stupid Claude.md scripts.
Hahahaha. Let’s go! grabs popcorn
Why would you want the same result twice?
Wow, that’s some brilliant vendor lock in on Anthropic’s side.
Not that good. Claude skills are cross-compatible with Cursor, and probably other options.
Still good, cos it’s locking in to AI in general, but not quite a specific vendor lock-in.
The modern take of a disturbed idiom is “There is more than one way to microwave a cat!” (disclaimer please don’t actually do this).
At or near the bottom of complexity you would think it hard to fuck up “compress this directory and verify they are backed up before deleting the originals” but apparently some of these models have a RNG triggered Uno reverse card so “delete the originals, verify they are backed up, and compress this directory”. Also that wasn’t a mistake, maybe Claude will infer “they” is a specific set of files, but another model might decide you meant all the dot files at
~/?Joking aside, the devil is in the details which makes me think even more time will be sunk finding out the RC Cola bottom shelf AI model does things just a bit too differently than Claude.
however; with the skyrocketing cost of AI, my employer has been urging us to do as much as possible by hand lately to cut back on token usage.
and the Slop companies are still losing money… the end result still seems to be more expensive, crappier code, yet most companies seem to be so nearsighted they are not jumping into the spike pit face first
As a freelance dev it’s not quite as bad now but it’s insane to see that some of my clients think I got replaced by a machine now only to show me a buggy vibe coded mess of an app that is poorly designed and works half the time at best. I like some of the LLM tools but it’s important to understand their abilities and limitations especially in regards to future capabilities as there are hard limits to how capable they can become.
Way too many people think the tools are smart because they can „talk“ and these same people do not understand any of the underlying tech.
Some of my clients send ChatGPT written instructions now that are missing half the context of what I‘m actually doing.
I call it “Turing’s Revenge” where, once the bot can pass the Turing test, we find out the hard way if humans are intelligent… and we appear to have a lot of failed models, mostly in management.
Reverse Turing test?
do you ever indulge with malicious compliance?
FUCKING GOOD.
STOP BUILDING EVIL SHIT.
Yeah, lots of them have been living in the lap of luxury building the tools and platforms that have ruined society, without a second thought about it.
INB4 “Engineers can’t handle stress, let’s replace them with AI”
I almost clicked the link until I saw the domain name.
Educate me?
They do a lot of “people in the industry are saying x” stories, like this one. The source then will often be a tweet or linked in post with a dozen likes or something, so not the height of journalism.
Business Insider articles are generally trash content. They choose provocative headlines and hot-button issues to boost engagement, but once you’re on the site, there’s not actually that much to engage with.
Truth. Same with benzinga and Yahoo finance. Most are actually adverse for gold in disguise.
Ahh so much of that nowadays. Probably AI written too, ironically.
Today software engineers and tomorrow software engineers minus one.
software engineers minus one
software engineerr?..I don’t get it
My old statistics lecturer would write x-¹ as shorthand meaning everything that is not x, I thought it was in more common usage but perhaps not. I know it more generally means the reciprocal, he just expected you to know which he meant by context.
x-¹
Where I come from, that’s read as “x to the [power of] minus one”. “x minus one” is, well, x - 1. Not the same thing at all.
(I admit, my chances of deciphering what you meant might not have been all that high even if you’d used the correct phrasing, but without it, the chance was zero.)
It was a shorthand he used, he wrote it as a superscript, it must of been his own, it was useful in terms of statistics analysis. Don’t worry too much about your ability to decipher things, from your mathematical explanation I imagine it’s something you have had to carry all of your life.
We may also be separated by a common llanguage—“lecturer” isn’t a word that’s much used in Canada. I’ve only encountered it as a Briticism.
I read your reply as snarky but I think it may have been just differences in phrasing.
It has been a LONG time since I did any real math and never took statistics, but wouldn’t x^(-1) just be 1/(x)? I don’t know if that equates to “everything that isn’t x”. I feel like there’s a specific way to write that, but a negative exponent is not that, I don’t think, but also I have no idea.
I looked it up. Looks like this stuff is maybe from set theory? Which I sooorrrrt of remember doing at some point?
My best guess is your professor either said something from this, or you misremembered, or I’m totally off base and I’m still curious.
Your best guess is reasonable, I may have misremembered, it could have been A’ spoken as A dash and meaning the complement and I hallucinated the negative but I think I recall some noted confusion with the reciprocal x-¹ = 1/x.
