I am thinking about this a lot right now. Pretty existential stuff.
I think builders are gonna be fine. The type of programmer were people would put up with just because they could really go in their cave for a few days and come out with a bug fix that nobody else on the team could figure out is going to have a hard time.
Interestingly AI coding is really good at that sort of thing and less good at fully grasping user requirements or big picture systems. Basically things that we had to sit in meetings a lot for.
> The type of programmer were people would put up with just because they could really go in their cave for a few days and come out with a bug fix that nobody else on the team could figure out is going to have a hard time.
Amen. It was a good time while it lasted.
All software engineers become pretty much the same in this world though. Anyone can sit in the meetings.
meetings hardly reach anywhere. most of the details are eventually figured out by developers when interacting with the code. If all ideas from PMs are implemented in a software, it would eventually turn into bloatware before even reaching MVP stage.
Not really, in my experience you still have to be good at solving problems to use it effectively. Claude (and other AI) can help folks find a "fix", but a lot of times it's a band-aid if the user doesn't understand how to debug / solve things themselves.
So the type of programmers you're talking about, who could solve complex problems, are actually just enhanced by it.
This has been my experience too. That insane race condition inside the language runtime that is completely inscrutable? Claude one-shots it. Ask it to work on that same logic to add features and it will happily introduce race conditions that are obvious to an engineer but a local test will never uncover.