Comment by lelanthran
3 days ago
> If you get to senior level then most of your job probably is not writing code, but planning things out.
If they're so good at banging out code now, they're coming for that too, you know.
3 days ago
> If you get to senior level then most of your job probably is not writing code, but planning things out.
If they're so good at banging out code now, they're coming for that too, you know.
I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely.
That might happen, but I don't think it's implied, at least given literally every other bit of technology that has ever happened in history ever.
> I don't necessarily disagree, but there's gotta be a name for some kind of "infinite extrapolation" fallacy, where you assume that the current rate of progress will continue indefinitely.
I am not assuming they'll continue indefinitely, but it's a small step from writing code to planning out the code to write, and another small step from planning a coding project to planning a software project, etc.
These are all small steps, and because the act of specification + planning paid less than specification + planning + programming, what reason do you have for thinking that specification + planning is valuable enough to keep the salaries the same as specification + planning + programming?
I think with a fixed size problem, no we wouldn't be able to demand the same salaries that we get now.
I dispute that the problem is fixed size. The people who are senior engineers now will learn how to think at a higher level with the AI models.
1 reply →