Comment by Ronsenshi
1 day ago
> It's a good time to choose wisely who you work with.
Very true, but this also makes me think what kind of ridiculous obstacle course future hiring process would look like.
In a land where anyone with a pulse can prompt AI to make an app for them - how would future hiring managers and team leads figure out who will drag codebase down with tech debt and who wouldn't?
Probably the same way they have for the last 30 years: poorly, in a dozen different ways, depending on what that particular hiring manager thinks has correlated with successful hiring in the past
Future hiring will select for people that shipped the most, plain and simple.
The tech debt concerns are much ado about nothing. Use the next model to clean it up, big deal. Code is cheap.
The people that sat around handwringing about tech debt and trying to read every line of LLM code will really struggle to find a job. The profession fundamentally changed, and these people did not catch up.
Sounds like a great way to end up with people that run 73 agents to create bunch of useless AI harnesses that nobody (including the repo owner) uses.
I think there has to be a better rubric by which person would be evaluated, not just amount of tokens they managed to waste.
> The people that sat around handwringing about tech debt and trying to read every line of LLM code will really struggle to find a job. The profession fundamentally changed, and these people did not catch up.
I'm inclined to agree - the latest models seem to have crossed a threshold where trying to review by hand becomes akin to a manager insisting on reviewing PRs.
I can imagine a code review where you're asked to implement and merge 10 PR in a sample codebase and the codebase is littered with the sorts of mistakes and slop that vibe coders put in when they're careless and you're asked to correct the mess and make it work.