What do you expect? Half of these decision makers are complete idiots that are just good at making money and think that that means they are smarter than anyone who makes less than them. They then see some new hyped up tech, they chat with ChatGPT and they are dump enough to be floored by it's "intelligence" and now they think it can replace workers but since it's still early, they assume that it will quickly surpass the workers. So in their mind, firing ten programmers and saving like two million a year, while only spending maybe a few tens of thousands a year on AI will be a crazy success that will show how smart they are. And as time goes on and the AI gets better, they will save even more money. So why spend more money to help the programmers improve, when you can just fire them and spend a fraction of it on AI?
Programming
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
I think C-suite's maniacal push to be early adopters of an unproven technology reveals just how bereft they are of good ideas.
Any leader with business sense would say, "Ok, we're doing good now. Let's investigate AI and see if/how it can help our business. Also, fuck no I'm not gonna go online to tell everyone what we're doing because that would only tip off our competition."
Instead, what we're seeing is a large number of C-suites thinking AI is fullfilling their wet-dream of firing everyone else and driving their stock prices to infinity by verbally masturbating in public media.
This is so fucking sad to acknowledge that a lot of people just want to squeeze any profit left in the industry, even though they know AI is a great tool for developers, not a replacement. They must know that because anyone who can access it can replicate the same things, making these products uncompetitive.
AI is a great tool for developers, not a replacement
AI isn't a great tool for developers. It's a great tool for mitigating the knowledge gap between an individual's academic understanding of a development project and the syntax involved in the language they are attempting to deploy.
As the number of programming languages has proliferated faster than the volume of developers versed in each language, and the older languages have lost much of their professional base to retirement and layoffs, we've needed increasingly elaborate tools to fill in the skills gaps.
But AI doesn't fix the underlying problem of an increasingly large backlog of code desperately in need of refactor or replacement. It just papers over the problem with a cheat-sheet of simple conversions that junior developers can leverage to liter the next iteration of the codebase with bandaids.
A proper solution to our coding backlog would be educational first and foremost. We need more rigorously enforced orthodox approaches to coding. We need more backwards compatibility between systems. We need to refine the number of languages in active use and narrow the size and scope of their libraries. We need a more universalist approach to building and maintaining database schemas, digital communications, and business practices. We need a publicly funded open source community of developers to build the backbone of software into the 21st century.
What we're producing is the opposite of that. Less rigor. Fewer recognizable standards. Less training. Poorer code hygiene and weaker enforcement of best practices. More bugs. So many more bugs. And enormous volumes of legacy code that nobody will be able to maintain - or even understand - in another twenty years.
An interesting trend is these comments: the worse a code base is, the more helpful AI is for expanding it (without actually fixing the underlying problems like repetitive overly long unexpressive code).
Right now? They’ve been doing this for two years!