Seriously? I can't speak for that 74%, but personally, I'm not worried. AI is not that smart, and my job is not that dumb. And I'm just a garden variety (non-AI-specialising) Python back-end dev.
How about the rest of y'all? Are you worried or are you meh?
There is of course a difference in where the remoteness comes from though: is it because the talent is that much in demand that it can just require it?
Or is it because your employer is so cheap, he rather offshores the job to some emerging market, irrespective of the slop[1] he gets?
[1] why EM code might be slop is another topic in itself but let’s just say: Good ppl from EMs don’t need to slave through slopshops
I wouldn't be shocked if AI got so good that in 10 years my company of 200 or so can't compete with 6 AI-enabled tweens. But if that actually happens then it's a whole new world governed by radically different economics. There's no use taking anxieties built for this world and projecting them into a future they don't fit with.
Am I worried that my job will be replaced by AI tools? On one hand, I know that ChatGPT can’t replace me. On the other hand, companies seem seldom run by logic and empirical data these days.
I’m worried that companies will attempt to replace SWEs with AI tools (even if it’s just halving the SWE department and saying “use ChatGPT to pick up the slack”).
Offshoring comes in and out of fashion, but when it’s in fashion, it seems to take years before companies realize their mistake.
Yeah, this is the real worry. The vast majority of the decision-making people in business are not at all trying to actually decide what is good for the business, they are trying to decide what is good for themselves.
As such it's not "can we effectively and efficiently fire people and replace them with robots and expect the business to continue to exist in a year". Instead it's more like "Can I get a bonus next quarter if I cut costs this quarter?".
People who are sitting around very rationally trying to discuss how much AI is improving or how fast are missing the point I'd say. Powerful people don't think in those kind of terms as far as the ground truth of things. Usually they are more interested in controlling the conversation and seizing initiative. They are happy to blow up the companies / countries / industries they operate in and depend on, because they can always find a way to profit from the chaos.
I won’t commute. No point in being a software engineer if I have to drive to an open office floor plan just to utilize a bunch of tools to try to tune out my surroundings and focus (eg., noise cancelling headphones).
I think I can get in somehwere via a referral but these friends/former coworkers don’t sell them at all. One is always complaining about a deadweight engineer on the team who hasn’t been fired because of nepotism. One always says how soul-sucking his job is, that the SRE basically decides how things are built rather than an architect, and it’s in the advertising space. The third one is a company I used to work for, and they’re full-remote now but apparently still rely heavily on cheap, garbage offshore “talent” which is why I left in the first place.
I love writing code and building apps but as time goes on it looks more and more like it’ll have to just be a hobby.
I thought about trying handyman type stuff. I have most of the tools needed, and I do things correctly. Like with code, I hate cutting corners and tend to be slower but I think deliver higher quality output. Some will say that is not appreciated anywhere- and perhaps least of all in the “handyman” space- I mean who wants to pay $80/hour for me when they can get another guy to do an “adequate” job for $60/hour?
I’ve also thought about building an app and trying to sell it/turn it into a revenue stream (I have a few ideas ) because it’s what I know how to do and if nobody is going to pay me I might as well write code “for me”.
Brass tacks, it’s a bad time to be a SWE.
SWEs truly do not recognize how extremely pampered and privileged they are. It might be a bad time to be a SWE but it's a worse time to be almost anything else.
You can break my balls about having “high standards”, but the reality is our industry is absolutely plagued with MBAs and other non-technical folk who think they know better than we do about things like how we are most productive and how software should be written. It’s a plenty-toxic field made worse by, surprise, MBAs who don’t understand LLMs but have an unfounded belief that they can replace engineers outright (2024-)…. Or MBAs who thought hiring every SWE they possibly could would be a good idea because borrowing money was “basically free” and they could just throw things at the wall to see what stuck and ax the rest (2020-2022).
If being a software engineer means constantly swimming against the current with things like commuting to an office, allowing non-technical people to make architectural decisions, and getting yelled at and cursed at over the phone because an ML model is “only” ~90% accurate…. It’s not the career for me.
Perhaps it is an especially bad moment to be a laid off tech worker due to the surge in supply, but that's a very small proportion of SWEs.
I'm sorry you're being shouted at and cursed at, that's totally unacceptable in any workplace and I hope you're able to find something better. FWIW there are still places that give their SWEs offices with doors that close.
So in that sense, absolutely self-employed has been the route for me that has yielded income.
When money is cheap every company in every industry can soak up engineers to make speculative or vanity apps and websites. When money gets tight companies find ways to do without. So on top of software-qua-software companies decreasing hiring, other companies also hire fewer engineers, and the effect compounds.
Personally, I think people will find a reason to justify their feelings, and I think the feelings since at least 2020 are that “a recession is imminent.” Nobody wants to be caught with their pants down, least of all FAANG, but when money was “virtually free” (Fed’s emergency interest rate drop to 0%) that was physically impossible. Now that interest rates are closer to where they probably should be and borrowing money isn’t really worthwhile if it can be avoided…. A recession is imminent.
The Fed’s soft landing may have done more harm than good in the long-run. Is delaying a recession (which by the way is a healthy part of any economy) really the preferred route when the economy has already had a record bull market? Now we’re in this weird limbo where the stock market and U-3 unemployment rate say “the economy is great!” and yet everything else seems to indicate the middle and lower classes are struggling at levels not seen since ~2009.
When you hear hoofprints, think horses, and the end of ZIRP is pretty clearly to blame.
I think everyone could see that the situation was unsustainable as far back as 10+ years ago - ad-supported apps being paid for by ads for other free ad-supporter apps. Below cost taxi rides and meals to your door. Companies paying $100,000 for engineers to do nothing just to make sure competitors are starved of talent. CRUD apps somehow getting million dollar valuations.
About a decade ago people were worried truck drivers would lose their jobs to AI; ignore the hype.
AI slop often doesn't displace designers because it is used in places you would never buy a design for. If the react feature wouldn't be done without AI... It just wouldn't be done and the business would probably survive.
Every software project has an infinite list of feature requests, bug fixes, etc. The cost of doing the work can shift a lot before it makes sense to start firing people. If there were actually a 100x productivity improvement it might be noticeable, the realistic estimate is closer to 20-30%, maybe 50 if you're writing very simple React exclusively. I think staffing levels is driven more by business/HR constraints than some ticket/worker calculation.
Uh if you think being a swe(i.e. programmer) requires having a CS background you're gonna have a bad time.
Most SW jobs are gluing shit together and dealing with the boogers, not designing an improvement to A* or implementing a red black tree. And I say that as an engineer on a team that actually does those sorts of things.
Hell, that's why AI has actually been slightly useful to save programmers work.
- AI is great for any kind of prototyping. If you want to test something super quick, go for AI built programs. It’s a cheap and fast way to test ideas.
- AI is not great for actual products especially those that have evolved some well justified complexity over time.
This explains why YC sees something like +80% of their new batches using AI and why I haven’t seen any cases of larger/established companies using AI more than an advanced type ahead in confined areas like testing.
So will AI be an essential part of any develop and build process? Absolutely.
Will AI be able to conquer the second space over time? Maybe. But also maybe not.
And if many people avoid CS now because they (falsely) believe AI will take their job, we will have a bad shortage of devs in a couple of years.
Yes, the job market is terrible, but blaming it on AI is wishful thinking if not another round of flaming the AI craze.
Anyone looked at the job market charts during covid? There was a historical hiring spree going on and it was obviously bound for correction. Which it did and now we’re basically at pre-pandemic levels.
Now it’s roughly 1 per month.
4 years (or more) in college is a ridiculously expensive investment both time and money wise to work in the software engineering field.
It shouldn't take more than 18 months of hands on training after/during high school to get started as an SWE. I don't know the origins of this 4 year degree but it shouldn't be the norm anymore. It robs the young adults precious years of real world experience and earning capability.
Also, it's a massive sunk cost which means they would be unwilling to explore other fields (e.g., masonry, plumbing, electrician..).
[1] ...working toward dual bachelor’s and master’s degrees in computer science.
4 years degree programme is not a problem, the problem lies where the people holding the money think they can replace human with computer.
The overemphasis on theory was probably justified when CSE program was created. Back then the field was quite new and engineers would often encounter problems that needed deep theoretical knowledge and mathematical modelling capabilities. In networking, compilers, distributed systems, OS, data storage systems etc., So a theoretical grounding was necessary to prepare them to solve those unknown problems.
However that doesn't seem to be the case anymore based on my experience. To build a typical business/consumer application there are well tested architecture patterns available along with technology and libraries.
Of course if one is operating at the bleeding edge (say chip design) then a deep grounding in theory (say physics of optics) is needed. But those are exception and not norm.
My frustration also stems from looking at the syllabus of typical CSE curriculum in India. In first year students learn a little bit of all other fields. Mechanical engineering, civil, electrical and so on. The CS courses start in real earnest from 4th semester. Why not start from CSE subjects right away? Why do they need to learn workings of an internal combustion engine!?
> the problem lies where the people holding the money think they can replace human with computer.
Those with money want to replace human workers with machines. Automation with robots and mechanisation has been happening in other fields (automobile, agriculture, construction...). That it'd happen to SWE was expected, no?
The same thing happened ten years ago with law school: everyone thought if they got a law degree they'd be set. And then there were too many degrees and not enough jobs
My ex was in that situation- the best she could find was a part-time gig at a tiny law firm that didn't pay much (and then she did a coding bootcamp and switched to software, and immediately tripled her salary)
Technologies were not meant to give you more free time or let people to be out of work and enjoy their idle time. Technologies are meant to increase productivity while utilizing ALL of the human resources at the disposal for a nation.
Heck, they don't even allow you to spend much time for family. They gave nursing homes for elderly and creches for the kids. The economies are built for workers and roads & cars are built to bring the workers to factories (offices).
Also they ensure that you don't dare to be out of job, by tying you down with the mortgages and keeping the house prices at a level that you need to work forever just to have a roof over your head.
You live in city because of work, and you work because you need to afford to live in city.
joshdavham•1h ago
As much as the current market saturation in tech can be linked to interest rates, overhiring or AI, I think that this is actually the main reason. Too many people got into tech simply for the paycheque, social status and perceived job security who weren't necessarily very passionate about the field to begin with.
There was a great YC video about this around a year ago where they basically lamented that many of the people getting into tech nowadays are the same people who, 20 years prior, would've gone into law, medicine, finance or management consulting. This has made the field ridiculously competitive and has also made it really difficult for employers to tell the yuppies apart from the true hobbyists.
mmcromp•1h ago
ghaff•1h ago
Some people here probably disagree but nothing wrong with picking something you’re OK with, pays well, and you’re competent at.
WarOnPrivacy•1h ago
A key factor in people overtraining for a particular field is a lack of alternatives.
People jam up a degree because it's the one reasonable option that has a real shot at paying for itself.
ghaff•4m ago
OutOfHere•1h ago
Jtsummers•1h ago
Here are some numbers:
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d19/tables/dt19_325.35.a...
Note the peak in 1986 or so. Another peak right after the dotcom bubble burst (students started during the bubble). And the late 2010s surge in masters degrees as people are either trying to make themselves more competitive (than just having a BS) or coming in from another field like EE or Physics and trying to get a credential to get in the door.
tsimionescu•1h ago
This is an extremely funny way for a place like YC to put this problem. The same place that views employment as a purely contractual based relationship, with at-will firing and with a concept that people shouldn't stay in the same job for too long is lamenting the appearance of workers who view things the same way and couldn't care less about your vision, and definitely won't sacrifice their personal life for your business' success, since it's not their hobby.
ghaff•32m ago
gymbeaux•1h ago
I would hate to think that I can’t find a job because all of these dead-weight engineers are occupying seats at companies who might otherwise hire me. I feel like it’s more likely that the dead weight let go from FAANG realized they have to actually do work now, and take their new roles “seriously enough.”
n8cpdx•1h ago
vunderba•1h ago
Conversely I can say with a high degree of confidence that I've never met a M.Eng who was in it for the material perks.
Tangentially, it reminds me of something I heard about Scandinavian countries (though I can't vouch for the veracity of it). Since you were going to get the hell taxed out of you no matter what you did - it made more sense to focus on doing what you loved as a career.
jaza•55m ago
ghaff•8m ago
Not so sure. A generally well-paying professional job? Probably. A deep passion for tinkering and building mechanical things? Not so obvious.
ironman1478•1h ago
photonthug•38m ago
I think I've been very lucky to frequently have coworkers that want to do a good job, but what is remarkable is that I've never worked for a company that really wanted to do a good job. Leaders fail upwards, terrible companies often survive and thrive, and thrive even harder when they get more terrible. The product as such is often fake; the customer list is usually the really valuable thing, and the customers themselves cannot leave for whatever reason, because they have no alternatives or are somehow held hostage. Many B2B relationships are completely unnecessary, it's just a tactic for a person at the business to become or remain important. Most CEOs would much rather play power games with mergers and acquisitions than do the comparatively boring work of mastering fundamentals or being innovative in their industries. Some version of this kind of mentality is becoming common for investors and workers too. Real work just gets in the way of looting the corpse and arranging your exit plans.
As narratives become more important than substance at virtually every level of post-manufacturing economic activity in services, and incentive structures are screwed up enough for a long time.. it's sad but not surprising that workers eventually get the "no one else cares, why should I?" attitude.