Tbh, getting good results from ai requires senior level intuition. You can be rusty as hell and not even middling in the language being used, but you have to understand data structures and architecture more than ever to get non-shit results. If you just vibe it, you’ll eventually end up with a mountain of crap that works sort of, and since you’re not doing the coding, you can’t really figure it out as you go along. Sometimes it can work to naively make a thing and then have it rewritten from scratch properly though, so that might be the path.
100% accurate. The architect matters so much more than people think. The most common counter argument to this I've seen on reddit are the vibe coders (particularly inside v0 and lovable subreddits) claiming they built an app that makes $x0,000 over a weekend, so who needs (senior) software engineers and the like?
A few weeks later, there's almost always a listing for a technical co-founder or a CTO with experience on their careers page or LinkedIn :)))
Like, I'm sure it's just laundering gcc's source at some level, but if Claude can handle making a compiler, either we have to reframe a compiler as "not serious", or, well, come up with a different definition for what entails "serious" code.
just to be clear: from my standpoint it's the worst period ever being a junior in tech, you are not "fucked" if you are junior, but hard times are ahead of you.
IMO with the latest generation (gpt codex 5.3 and claude 4.6) most devs could probably be replaced by AI. They can do stuff that I've seen senior devs fail at. When I have a question about a co-workers project, I no longer ask them and instead immediately let copilot have a look at the repo and it will be faster and more accurate at identifying the root cause of issues than humans who actually worked on the project. I've yet to find a scenario where they fail. I'm sure there are still edge cases, but I'm starting to doubt humans will matter in them for long. At this point we really just need better harnesses for these models, but in terms of capabilities they may as well take over now.
> most devs could probably be replaced by AI. They can do stuff that I've seen senior devs fail at.
When I read these takes I wonder what kind of companies some of you have been working for. I say this as someone who has been using Opus 4.6 and GPT-Codex-5.3 daily.
I think the “senior developer” title inflation created a bubble of developers who coasted on playing the ticket productive game where even small tasks could be turned into points and sprints and charts and graphs such that busy work looked like a lot of work was being done.
Tbh, getting good results from ai requires senior level intuition. You can be rusty as hell and not even middling in the language being used, but you have to understand data structures and architecture more than ever to get non-shit results. If you just vibe it, you’ll eventually end up with a mountain of crap that works sort of, and since you’re not doing the coding, you can’t really figure it out as you go along. Sometimes it can work to naively make a thing and then have it rewritten from scratch properly though, so that might be the path.
100% accurate. The architect matters so much more than people think. The most common counter argument to this I've seen on reddit are the vibe coders (particularly inside v0 and lovable subreddits) claiming they built an app that makes $x0,000 over a weekend, so who needs (senior) software engineers and the like? A few weeks later, there's almost always a listing for a technical co-founder or a CTO with experience on their careers page or LinkedIn :)))
If that's true, it sounds like the vibe coders are winning - they're creating products people want, and pull in technical folks as needed to scale.
1 reply →
This mirrors my experience exactly. Vibe coding straight up does not work for any serious code.
I can't help but feel the only reason to post a comment like this is due to something similar to Cunningham's Law.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cunningham%27s_Law
Todo web apps aren't serious code, I can buy that, but in your mind, what is? Are compilers "serious code"?
https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-c-compiler
Like, I'm sure it's just laundering gcc's source at some level, but if Claude can handle making a compiler, either we have to reframe a compiler as "not serious", or, well, come up with a different definition for what entails "serious" code.
4 replies →
Still a wildly different thesis than the “juniors are fucked, ladder’s been raised”
just to be clear: from my standpoint it's the worst period ever being a junior in tech, you are not "fucked" if you are junior, but hard times are ahead of you.
OTOH, as a junior, you haven't learned all the wrong lessons that don't apply anymore, and you have fewer responsibilities than the seniors.
4 replies →
IMO I have found that juniors working with AI is basically just like subscribing to an expensive AI agent.
IMO with the latest generation (gpt codex 5.3 and claude 4.6) most devs could probably be replaced by AI. They can do stuff that I've seen senior devs fail at. When I have a question about a co-workers project, I no longer ask them and instead immediately let copilot have a look at the repo and it will be faster and more accurate at identifying the root cause of issues than humans who actually worked on the project. I've yet to find a scenario where they fail. I'm sure there are still edge cases, but I'm starting to doubt humans will matter in them for long. At this point we really just need better harnesses for these models, but in terms of capabilities they may as well take over now.
> most devs could probably be replaced by AI. They can do stuff that I've seen senior devs fail at.
When I read these takes I wonder what kind of companies some of you have been working for. I say this as someone who has been using Opus 4.6 and GPT-Codex-5.3 daily.
I think the “senior developer” title inflation created a bubble of developers who coasted on playing the ticket productive game where even small tasks could be turned into points and sprints and charts and graphs such that busy work looked like a lot of work was being done.
they are good at some weird problems - but also write some really bad code and sometimes come up with wrong answers.
2 replies →
[flagged]
ehm ... it's basically what all big consultancies have been doing in the last 20 years .. and they made tons of money with this model.
Making money consulting doesn't require positive results.