this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
77 points (84.7% liked)
Programming
24097 readers
289 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
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
It takes jobs because executives push it hoping to save six figures per replaced employee, not because it's actually better. The downsides of AI-written code (that it turns a codebase into an unmaintainable mess whose own "authors" won't have a solid mental model of it since they didn't actually write it) won't show up immediately, only when something breaks or needs to be changed.
It's like outsourcing - it looks promising and you think you'll save a ton of money, until months or years later when the tech debt comes due and nobody in the company knows how to fix it. Even if the code was absolutely flawless, you still need to know it to maintain it.
So you're not in the "they're only hallucinating" camp, I take it? I actually start out with a solid mental model of what I want to do, ending up with small unit tested classes/functions that all pass code review. It's not like I just tell an "AI" to write the whole thing and commit and push without reviewing myself first.
Edit: and as I commented elsewhere in this thread, the way I'm using LLM's, no one could tell that an LLM ever was involved.
I wouldn't listen to anyone who deal in absolutes. Could be a sith.
But for real. My manager has explained it best. It's a tool, you can use to enhance your work. That's it. It won't replace good coders but it will replace bad ones because the good ones will be more efficient
Here's where we just start touching on the second order problem. Nobody starts as a good coder. We start making horrible code because we don't know very much, and though years of making mistakes we (hopefully) improve, and become good coders.
So if AI "replaces bad ones" we've effectively ended the pipeline for new coders to enter the workforce. This will be fine for awhile as we have two to three generations of coders that grew up (and became good coders) prior to AI. However, that most recent generation that was pre-AI is that last one. The gate is closed. The ladder pulled up. There won't be any more young "bad ones" that grow up into good ones. Then the "good ones" will start to die off or retire.
Carried to its logical conclusion, assuming nothing else changes, then there aren't any good ones, nor will there every be again.
At least where I work, we're actively teaching the junior devs on best practices and patterns that are tried and true. Like no code copying, small classes with one task, small methods with one task, separating logic from the database/presentation, unit testing etc.
Edit: actively, not actually
I agree. In the long run it will hurt everyone.
then they will try to squeeze the ones that are sitll employed harder, because they "couldnt" find any fresh coders out of college or whatever training they did.
That will backfire on employers. With the shortage of seniors with good skills, the demand will rise for them. An employer that squeezes his seniors will find them quitting because there will be another desperate employer that will treat them better.
There are bad coders and then there are bad coders. I was a teaching assistant through grad school and in the industry I've interviewed the gamut of juniors.
There are tons of new grads who can't code their way out of a paper bag. Then there's a whole spectrum up to and including people who are as good at the mechanics of programming as most seniors.
The former is absolutely going to have a hard time. But if you're beyond that you should have the skills necessary to critically evaluate an agent's output. And any more time that they get to instead become involved in the higher level discussions going on around them is a win in my book.
The Force is strong with this one.
Exactly, it's just another tool in the toolbox. And if we can use that tool to weed out the (sometimes hilariously bizarre) bad devs, I'm all for it.
I do have a concern for the health of the overall ecosystem though. Don’t all good devs start out as bad ones? There still needs to be a reasonable on-ramp for these people.
That's a valid concern, but I really don't think that we should equate new devs with seniors that are outright bad. Heck, I've worked with juniors that scared the hell out of me because they were so friggin good, and I've worked with "seniors" who didn't want to do loops because looping = bad performance.
You said elsewhere that you're not correcting the AI, haha. Sounds like you only don't need to correct it because you're guiding it away from it's own weak spots.
So don't sell yourself short.
The AI hate here is because it is oversold to people who will only make a mess with it. It can be lovely in the right hands.
It's mostly in the wrong hands, today.
It sounds to me like you’ve got a good head on your shoulders and you’re actually using the tool effectively. You’re keeping yourself in control and using it to expand your own capabilities, not offloading your job responsibilities, which is how more inept management views AI.