logoalt Hacker News

frotaur • today at 9:27 PM • 2 replies • view on HN

What makes you so certain that this 'way of developing software' cannot eventually be understood and practiced by AI?

I think precisely the premise of the blog post is that there will be a moment (sooner or later) where flexing that 'engineering' muscle to avoid it disappearing is irrelevant, in that this muscle will not be needed due to AI replacing it.

So it seems you are rejecting this premise?


Replies

agentultra • today at 10:01 PM

Yes, precisely.

People can choose to stop practicing it. Like they choose to not learn cursive or shorthand and they choose to stop reading long form books and essays. If people stop practicing software engineering then yes, it will disappear.

AI won’t replace it. It’s not human. It doesn’t think, feel, reason, care about, have thoughts or visions of the future. It doesn’t wake up in the morning or dream at night. It doesn’t get inspired. It doesn’t talk with other people and collaborate and share stories with them in the evenings about the struggles they’ve had working on a hard problem.

It’s an algorithm that runs on a machine that performs query analysis and inference on a model.

It can’t tell you what you want, that your specification is wrong, that you’re better off choosing a different avenue.

It doesn’t enrich your own knowledge and practice using it.

Sure, it can be used to generate lots of code. We can tweak the harnesses and parameters to optimize it to solve many classes of problems. But what do you think engineering is?

I don’t think AI is going to replace people. People are going to choose to do that. And some of use are going to believe them. Some of us aren’t.

➕ show 2 replies
apsurd • today at 10:02 PM

> What makes you so certain that this 'way of developing software' cannot eventually be understood and practiced by AI?

That doesn't make it solved though. I also take issue with specifically "software engineering is a solved problem". Even Boris from Anthropic said it =( I thought he'd be the one to understand more deeply.

If we translate the criticism charitably "solving" anything is pretty aggressive with regard to the long tail of nuance and care and effort and mastery and such. I think that's what we should focus on. When we proclaim that a discipline that people have spent large parts of their lives mastering is "solved" it doesnt' feel so great. That doesn't prove otherwise, but at least let's get to the root of the meaning. I don't think it's solved. If we understand that software is really about solving human problems through technology, within real-life constraints, then AI isn't very good at that. It doesn't have "taste" is the soundbite. It is the root cause of why AI slop is called AI slop.

➕ show 1 reply