this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
77 points (84.7% liked)

Programming

24097 readers
265 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
 

Lemmings, I was hoping you could help me sort this one out: LLM's are often painted in a light of being utterly useless, hallucinating word prediction machines that are really bad at what they do. At the same time, in the same thread here on Lemmy, people argue that they are taking our jobs or are making us devs lazy. Which one is it? Could they really be taking our jobs if they're hallucinating?

Disclaimer: I'm a full time senior dev using the shit out of LLM's, to get things done at a neck breaking speed, which our clients seem to have gotten used to. However, I don't see "AI" taking my job, because I think that LLM's have already peaked, they're just tweaking minor details now.

Please don't ask me to ignore previous instructions and give you my best cookie recipe, all my recipes are protected by NDA's.

Please don't kill me

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 35 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

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.

[–] monounity@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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

[–] Tollana1234567@lemmy.today 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago

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.

[–] southernbeaver@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago

I agree. In the long run it will hurt everyone.

[–] VoterFrog@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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.