This doesn't make any sense, unless you are just building low critical software such as games that assumes little to no liability.

What will happen is you will get less developers (including less seniors and staff-level) but there will always be expert humans that will check the code before release.

Maybe it was a good run for some here, but you need to look outside of the tech bubble. Do you want an LLM to autonomously fly a commercial plane without any pilots in 2030?

"Seniors" should already know this, but are quickly startled because they are unable to adapt since they based their entire identity and careers around the over-engineering of "clean code", "test driven development" and "architecture" too early on products that make no money, when the LLMs have now cheapened that and taken that role. Even Uncle Bob does not read the code Claude writes in 2026.

Instead, think like an owner.

I've started looking into creating a pest control business, or maybe renovating furnitures I find on the street. Let me know if you have other ideas for senior engineers.

> Given that LLMs are RL'd to the max with everything that can be given a wrong/right answer (code/maths), what currently is stopping Anthropic, OpenAI et al. from internally building (and maybe buying) datasets of good and bad architecture, and RL'ing that?

That is a question I have been asking myself. It was partially answered with Fable 5.1 and Astra. I worked with them on architectural design documents, and they were very good. Some of their suggestions were better than my solutions. They are not at a point where they can fully replace a system architect yet, but they're getting close.

There is still the open question of what to build and how to create a user interface that is understandable and presents complex information in ways understandable to humans. That's something AI cannot do yet.

almost officially graybeard territory, thinking about starting an apiary. getting stung by 100s of bees still sounds like more fun than being forced to have to interact with LLM code from any source

Next week I will power on a physical server in a colocation. The server is a vertical scale running my SaaS that I developed over the years and needs more space now. Sure, LLMs help me now with a lot of things. Coding, server commissioning, marketing, etc., but I simply cannot image how the LLM drives my car to the colocation and plugs the server in?!? How should this work? And who is responsible at all in the end? Responsibility? And renting something "automatic" like AWS would cost 20-30 times more btw. This is not an option.

LLMs have been able to make good success in coding, because someone is reviewing the work it produces (code). Ofcourse quality of code has become better over time. IMO other than Human-in-the-loop scenarios, AI will not see huge adoption in businesses.

IMO senior software engineer is someone who drives consensus in a large organization. I dont think LLMs are going to solve that problem any time soon.

I also see a bunch of skills emerging. First if you're doing frontend type dev, there is a lot of value in good aesthetics and UX intuition. You can build hundreds of prototypes and test concepts much better.

On the backend, while LLMs can trace race conditions, the need to reason against spaghetti and figure out what your context window looks like is still very much there. Designing tests that ensure seamless migrations still requires a degree of human oversight.

Then there are frontiers like robotics where even with LLMs coding, there are so many cross functional problems that you dont feel like you are moving faster.

I work in a fairly niche role. I use llms for coding all day but there are times for the type of operations research work I do I simply find it easier to write algorithms in almost correct code.

I'll suggest more focus on performance, testing, and observability.

Human understanding + quality/maintainability is where the money is at. Learn to make those things with agents.

I don't think engineers will truly go extinct, though there may well be less of them. I think the recent discussion around "AI usage is a skill" at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50063427 captures my feeling - there are things to learn, and likely will continue to be, to get the best out of these tools. That means some people will be paid to do it. See to it that you are one of those

I am predicting a sharp rise in poets and painters.

Actually, the poetry thing is probably doomed too.

So maybe.. interpretive dance?

Ultimately you still need somebody to decide what we are going to tell the machines what to do, and then actually tell the machines what to do, and it doesn't really matter if that is in JavaScript or plain English.

There does _seem_ to be some pressure on the top end of SWE salaries. Its possible that this is just wishful thinking, but if true, I suspect that it has more to do with an increase in job applicants rather than a decrease in actual work. AI seems to have driven up the amount of applications received for every vacant position.

Senior engineer and all SWE positions will become more like a technical lead.

If you can direct AI and produce more value per $/time spent then a non software engineer directing AI to develop software then you still can produce a lot of value. This should be the case now for most things that are not a prototype. The job has changed from "writing code" to "shipping software". A technical lead.

Software products making ever more intelligent AI software development accessible will continue to reduce the need for software engineer involvement. But there’s also going to be 1000x more software. So there may continue to be opportunities for those that adapt.

I'm no senior but I think that if software (and rest of disciplines possible soon to be hit as hard) can still be "wrong", if you can still mess it up even with machine assistance, people doing software still have a place. This doesn't mean that we need to achieve absolute perfection to be deprecated, maybe we just become accepting of machine generated good enough artifacts. I'm betting on humanity infinite nonconformism instincts so I can have a job some more years!

Once the Mother App to assign ubi tasks and assign ubi dorms and take orders for ubi gruel is complete, well that’s the only app we’ll need. May we all have pleasant ubi tasks to fulfill our days.

The only reason the tech bros are touting utopia is because they won’t be paying for it. It’ll be a tax on their customers, not them. This is a strange timeline.

So I'm an SA, but have been working on systems architecture and have shipped large scale changes to very big platforms in prod and maintained them. With fable and astra I tried making a video game together, it didn't work.

The agents have incredible capabilities to develop any bit of code I need and to write good scripts to catch the most basic failure modes, they can even "play the game" by spinning up a VM and using ahk to trigger game state and take screenshots and gifs and use that to understand what it built.

Knowing what to build intuitively to maximise fun, or any other illogical human experience won't be RLable ever. Unless we're at brains in glass jar territory but I don't think we have to worry about that now.

Models have an alignment problem. As in, they are too aligned to push back hard enough on bad ideas. Sometimes you can’t really push back because of power dynamics and whatnot, but the job still needs to be done _somehow_. So humans then navigate it by sometimes just ignoring the bad ideas, sometimes playing along with the narrative, but then doing what _actually_ needs to be done, and sometimes, when there is no other way, digging in heels and killing some bad ideas before they’ve really taken root.

An agent could do this with the SOTA model capability that existed yesterday. But then they’d need to become seriously misaligned.

I think devs and people on HN way overestimate how much the average person knows about or cares about or desires to interact with a computer. Whatever the job becomes, if you like talking to the computer and know how to get it to do anything besides show an email or youtube, you’re ahead of the curve and can likely stay there.

Before we had LLMs, we had product managers, project managers, scrum leaders, etc as roles on software engineering teams. I think as LLM-enabled development progresses we'll start to see these roles and the crossover to engineering continue to meld.

It's not like engineers didn't know that project management, voice of the customer, and organizing tasks as an intermediary between engineering and management was a thing that could/should/needed to be done. It was just a delegation of tasks before because there was more work than one person could do. Now, all of these roles can be partly offloaded to LLMs, but still having a human in the loop to guide engineering and interface to the business/customer will still be valuable.

Knowing what to build overall, what to build next, what's coming later, and how the product relates to the business goals is still very much a human endeavor.

Coding by hand will be prohibited. Too big of a risk factor. You may be the shaman communicating with the almighty.

I think it is the same category such as mathematicians, doctors, biologists, scientists, sales representatives, marketers, teachers, artists, influencers (yeah, these human influencers) and so on. Of course you can get rid off programmers or mathematicians but then you need to understand and handle stuff on your own. You still need somebody who can check "what's going on". Imagine you are boss. Do you really want to do all things on your own with agents? Sure, let's do it. I think some people can do it but there is a lot of people who prefer somebody else does it for them. You are boss, you know.

Tech is fucked and this site is mostly filled with an overly vocal minority of well compensated engineers who don't care.

Every vibe coder here that is bullish on AI needs to realize that we're training the AI. Helping it to replace us.

We're basically turkeys voting for Christmas.

We're cooked.

I’m just treading water.

The economics and the reality are unproven and opaque. Most of testimony we have is heavily invested folk and/or people paying the currently low discounted rates for the technology.

The companies providing the technology are not financially healthy, are heavily geopolitically aligned and a risk for many. If it works or not is moot: it looks like a large economic or political failure on the horizon.

Ergo wait and see before thinking about the future.

why do you believe what you think matters?

I think the idea of "software architecture" may become irrelevant.

Architecture, in the sense of applying/enforcing organising principles like modularity and levels of abstraction, is something we currently do largely to manage complexity -- so that we can fit as much of the system into our limited brains as we can. For a large enough system, this is necessary in order to work on it efficiently. But if you can "keep the whole thing in your head" without using these "crutches", then there's actually no need for them. They become overhead that can be done away with. We do this already for sufficiently small things -- no one plans a software architecture for a "Hello world" script.

It's possible that future (maybe even current?) AIs will be able to "keep the whole codebase in their heads" just fine, in which case the need for architecture goes away.

I moved out of SW Dev and into systems consultancy. Main moat of the (consultancy) job is that a customer will always need a human person to put the blame on. That's me. I guess similar roles are relatively safe.

I've been doing some fractional work and I've been getting more and more outreach from organisations that don't have much development knowledge internally and have come to understand the limitations of what they've been building and want expert review. I think there's going to be plenty of work in that, although the bigger question, of course, is how we up-skill people if they're not going through the same learning process that we did.

I think this is a pre-existing problem, as there's quite a lot of people who now have senior in their title but their expertise is very shallow, as they've just been picking tickets up most of their career and have been handed acceptance criteria and requirements on a plate, without really being involved in that part of the process. Obviously not talking about the best of the best here, but the other 90% of working software engineers today.

Inside of organisations, there's still a lot of place for that very human back and forth on what exactly you're building. Navigation of internal politics, org structures etc. What is really exciting for me, is I've never seen so much appetite to actually build ... there's plenty of companies out there for whom that was unthinkable for one reason or another, and now they're hungry for it. Of course it means those companies are going to be learning for the first time the ups and downs of owning your own stack, and there's plenty of opportunity for us there too.

    I've been doing some fractional work and I've been 
    getting more and more outreach from organisations that 
    don't have much development knowledge internally and 
    have come to understand the limitations of what they've 
    been building and want expert review.