I don't understand how anyone can get to the level where they "understand programming basics, architecture, and what good code looks like" without years of grinding code, collaborating, research, mistakes, refactoring, etc.
To me, the idea that a Junior Developer would understand CS at that level or get there without writing code every day for a very long time seems highly unlikely.
I look at it kind of similarly to what the rise of online poker did for texas hold'em. You had people who spent decades playing in person to learn enough to get to the highest tier, but when online poker came about people were able to play 4+ tables at once basically 24/7 at a higher hourly hand rate per table than was possible in person (let alone having access to analysis tools like Poker Tracker). People were able to get very good in a much shorter amount of time.
I suspect we're going to see something similar with Junior talent across the board. A lot of the barriers to actually getting to the core of software engineering for example are going away, and you're going to be able to get orders of magnitude more trial and error attempts in than you previously could in the same amount of time.
You'll have to forgive me because I know literally nothing about competitive poker. Are there players whose experience is primarily online, who show up at in-person tournaments and lack the "soft skills" necessary to excel in that setting? Preventing themselves from exhibiting tells, etc.
I'm not trying to relate this back to the AI/junior/senior developer question, I'm just curious about the dynamic in poker since you seem to know what you're talking about.
I played online poker successfully for years back when it was booming.
There are definitely online players who lack the skills you're describing, but that's not as much of a problem as you think. You can hide tells just by shutting up and staying still while you're in the action.
The other half of that is reading other people's tells, and online poker is more helpful there than you'd think. Most of reading other people (especially at relatively low-mid levels) is about reading the story they're telling with their action rather than reading their face/words/etc.
Classic example is: There are two hearts on the board on the flop and the person calls your bet. Turn comes, not a heart, person calls again. River comes, not a heart, person suddenly bets big to try to get you to fold, because they had two hearts and failed to make their flush.
Bigger picture, you read their style of play. Are they playing a lot of hands or very few? Passive or very active? None of these things require reading the person's mannerisms, and you can practice all of them very well online (though online you also run tracking software that gives you stats on opponents, which helps when you're playing a bunch of tables at a time).
Writing this out makes me miss online poker. Shame the games are terrible now (and I also have a child and business as opposed to the endless free time of my twenties, to be fair).
I can't speak for everyone, I've definitely seen people make the transition or at least bring in-person tournaments into the games they play. I suspect a lot do just prefer online because of how convenient it is and don't really explore in-person events.
For me, there was definitely a high level of anxiety and nerves when I sat down at a table for the first time again after playing online for a while. But it gets easier and easier to shake that off and just get into the flow of watching betting patterns (which is the main thing you have to work with online) which to me was always the primary source of tells rather than anything physical. So maybe in my case the answer to your question is yes haha :) though it didn't seem to impact me negatively much.
Yes. But it goes both ways. Online and in person have the same calculations for value, but lacking physical tells you learn to rely on those calculations more. As a result you’ll likely see a lot stronger players online (better at knowing and playing the odds) than an in-person game. This doesn’t even touch on the number of “cheaters” who use assistance online for calculations and bet placement.
Another analogy that might work is chess. I’ve only ever played “classical” chess and when my son got interested in playing I would crush him every time. Up until the point he got into bullet chess and was literally grinding out dozens of games a day where I’d casually play a game of classical chess like once or twice a month. His confidence and ability skyrocketed and I’m not even a challenge for him anymore. Now I’m not a real chess player, and there are areas of his game that are definitely weak compared to classical chess players who have played as many games as he has. But to turn around so quickly from not being able to win a game against me to dominating me in every game was impressive.
One striking thing about Gen Alpha and young Zoomers is how RAPIDLY they learn. Being young is like being on learning-focused anabolic steroid #1 + online programs and AI are like learning-focused anabolic steroid #2. It's really impressive. Take any "time to learn" estimate you have, like "2 years to become good at chess", and today's young people can slice it by 10x.
I agree with that, but one of the core lessons I've learned over my career in technology is that iteration rates are critical for learning. The shorter you can get the feedback loop, the faster you'll learn and advance. Companies that release software once a year or every other year are objectively terrible at it versus companies who release weekly or even daily. Bullet chess and online poker drastically shorten the feedback loop for those games compared to the "traditional" method of playing.
That said I'm glad this founder is able to micromanage his AI, they sound like a very problematic person to actually work with as an engineer, and if screaming into the void of AI means he is no longer sending vague poorly worded demands, I guess that alone might be worth it
LOL. AI is currently like a mid-level average to good engr who can write good code but ocassionally goes off the rails. Any engr on a team with those characteristics would be heavily vetted in reviews. Almost like a smart CS intern.
If AI was amazing senior level engr, it would be a different story.
Your take on outdated university curricula totally hits the bulls eye here. We gotta revamp academic programs to match the fast-paced industry tech development and new trends. Junior roles are key, we just changed what the jr role needs to do - prompt, check, re-run, verify... but we need fresh grads ready to crush it with cutting-edge skills.
Universities aren't job training. Universities are for getting foundational academic skills. You can use that to get a great foundation for applied knowledge, but that's not what they are for. Universities are measured by publications.
During my internship my placement suggested on the feedback form at the end of term a focus on more upcoming skills like Flash, Silverlight, and Aero. 3 years ago we'd be telling students to learn blockchain. My education, which included foundational aspects like OS, ended up being more important when containers came around, even when it was "obvious" that Windows was the only OS anyone will use now.
Universities are higher level foundations just like elementary and high school. Not job training. Best course is to get you four year, and then take a year or two for bootcamps and/or community college to get whatever is currently hot and disposable.
A large chunk of junior roles have vanished. Tech is neither a lucrative nor an interesting career anymore.
Prompting until you get a somewhat working solution is boring af. I dont want to tell an LLM what to code i want to do it myself. In every bullet point he has the AI word in it.
> First, let's be clear, AI agents do remove roles. At previous companies I founded, I needed a team of developers to build a robust website, integrate it into deployment pipelines, configure hosting, make the UI look good, and handle all the moving parts. I needed marketers to create content, design images in Figma, Canva, and Photoshop, manually research, and write notes to customers and prospects. Now, AI agents can handle a huge portion of that.
I don't believe a word of this. If you replaced your marketers and designers with ChatGPT and a SVG generator, then you shouldn't act surprised when your marketing doesn't work. Your entire thesis statement of "AI agents do remove roles" is unfounded if you refuse to show us metrics to qualitatively compare the success of AI versus human marketing.
How do you know that AI isn't the reason your startups fail to find traction in an AI-saturated market? Do any of your businesses exhibit self-evident runaway success because of AI? It doesn't even sound like you're measuring.
I agree that AI does not replace the best people in those roles. It can do an average to good job. Maybe it can reach top 40% of the industry? If you need the best UI or best marketing, humans are still netter. Those top human jobs won't go away for a while.
With that in mind, if you just need average to good, AI can do a good job at a tiny fraction of the cost. So the average to good roles will start getting replaced.
As examples, the sites tellmel.ai, and rivalsee.com for example were created without needing a UI or frontend designer. In the past I would have needed to hire a UI employee or consultant to do either of those at a very large expense (especially for the really good ones).
This is bullshit. Junior roles have already been extinct for quite a long time now.
No place that's hiring will give you the time of day until you already have the word "Senior" in your title. But no one can explain where Seniors are supposed to come from though.
We have a floor full of interns right now. Our India and Mexico offices do as well. Some of them will probably be offered full-time roles.
I hired a junior engineering a few years ago. And have done every few years for about a decade.
I work at a mid-size, PE-owned company that's been around for 50+ years, that operates in the enterprise SaaS space. Junior roles aren't going anywhere. But, the expectations of those junior hires will change (as they have evolved since I was junior myself, way back in the 90s).
Will AI change how we hire and retain talent? Of course.
We, at a large Dutch bank, also do have 20+ interns but 0 positions for them in IT department. Leadership is projecting that if you do well in internship then you'll be hired. But no interns were hired in last 2 years...
People have been asking the executive class this for a long while now: why don’t you care about training? Their response has ever been silence or threats or that’s what school is for. Do it on your own time, after the 50+ hours we demand from you. Some places get it and had a proper pipeline to train. A vast majority do not. And now they give us this. Great bunch of folks.
Key phrase is you hired them a few years ago. That’s not helpful in the discussion now.
Edit: Missed this was in response to “extinct for a long time” which makes more sense. It is true that it is an entirely different world than three years ago.
But my belief is those companies will soon realize that some of the people who they thought were junior are pretty adept at AI management - more adept than the senior people. And that skill will suddenly be more in demand than how well you can code an optimized sorting algorithm.
Some will get there faster than others of course. But AI is changing things so quickly that it may happen faster than we think, given the state right now.
I don't mean right now, I mean going as far back as 2018 at least when I had to go through a brutal slog over many months to get my first gig as a new software dev. I eventually ended up in a midlevel role and had to grow into it (I still feel like I found a Willy Wonka golden ticket).
But it is infuriating to see people suggest that there is such a thing as junior level positions and that companies actually want to hire junior level people. That has been absolutely false for a very long time.
Yeah the joke is companies want to hire someone who is already an expert in that role who is curious and a fast learner, without realizing that if someone is already an expert who is curious and a fast learner, they probably want a different role to grow into.
I don't mean to shit on your article. I think the general gist of it is correct; what it means to be a software developer is going to radically change for all levels, not just we mere mortals without the magical word "Senior" in our titles. Being fluent in prompting and supervising AI agents are going to be more of the day to day than cranking out lines of code.
I'm just (I think justifiably) a little salty because not that long ago LEARN TO CODE!!! was the mantra for those who wanted to step up into a middle class life and now every executive and their mother is frothing at the mouth over shoehorning AI into anything and everything and pulling up what little of the career ladder exists while they're at it.
I don't understand how anyone can get to the level where they "understand programming basics, architecture, and what good code looks like" without years of grinding code, collaborating, research, mistakes, refactoring, etc.
To me, the idea that a Junior Developer would understand CS at that level or get there without writing code every day for a very long time seems highly unlikely.
What am I not understanding?
I look at it kind of similarly to what the rise of online poker did for texas hold'em. You had people who spent decades playing in person to learn enough to get to the highest tier, but when online poker came about people were able to play 4+ tables at once basically 24/7 at a higher hourly hand rate per table than was possible in person (let alone having access to analysis tools like Poker Tracker). People were able to get very good in a much shorter amount of time.
I suspect we're going to see something similar with Junior talent across the board. A lot of the barriers to actually getting to the core of software engineering for example are going away, and you're going to be able to get orders of magnitude more trial and error attempts in than you previously could in the same amount of time.
You'll have to forgive me because I know literally nothing about competitive poker. Are there players whose experience is primarily online, who show up at in-person tournaments and lack the "soft skills" necessary to excel in that setting? Preventing themselves from exhibiting tells, etc.
I'm not trying to relate this back to the AI/junior/senior developer question, I'm just curious about the dynamic in poker since you seem to know what you're talking about.
I played online poker successfully for years back when it was booming.
There are definitely online players who lack the skills you're describing, but that's not as much of a problem as you think. You can hide tells just by shutting up and staying still while you're in the action.
The other half of that is reading other people's tells, and online poker is more helpful there than you'd think. Most of reading other people (especially at relatively low-mid levels) is about reading the story they're telling with their action rather than reading their face/words/etc.
Classic example is: There are two hearts on the board on the flop and the person calls your bet. Turn comes, not a heart, person calls again. River comes, not a heart, person suddenly bets big to try to get you to fold, because they had two hearts and failed to make their flush.
Bigger picture, you read their style of play. Are they playing a lot of hands or very few? Passive or very active? None of these things require reading the person's mannerisms, and you can practice all of them very well online (though online you also run tracking software that gives you stats on opponents, which helps when you're playing a bunch of tables at a time).
Writing this out makes me miss online poker. Shame the games are terrible now (and I also have a child and business as opposed to the endless free time of my twenties, to be fair).
I can't speak for everyone, I've definitely seen people make the transition or at least bring in-person tournaments into the games they play. I suspect a lot do just prefer online because of how convenient it is and don't really explore in-person events.
For me, there was definitely a high level of anxiety and nerves when I sat down at a table for the first time again after playing online for a while. But it gets easier and easier to shake that off and just get into the flow of watching betting patterns (which is the main thing you have to work with online) which to me was always the primary source of tells rather than anything physical. So maybe in my case the answer to your question is yes haha :) though it didn't seem to impact me negatively much.
Yes. But it goes both ways. Online and in person have the same calculations for value, but lacking physical tells you learn to rely on those calculations more. As a result you’ll likely see a lot stronger players online (better at knowing and playing the odds) than an in-person game. This doesn’t even touch on the number of “cheaters” who use assistance online for calculations and bet placement.
Another analogy that might work is chess. I’ve only ever played “classical” chess and when my son got interested in playing I would crush him every time. Up until the point he got into bullet chess and was literally grinding out dozens of games a day where I’d casually play a game of classical chess like once or twice a month. His confidence and ability skyrocketed and I’m not even a challenge for him anymore. Now I’m not a real chess player, and there are areas of his game that are definitely weak compared to classical chess players who have played as many games as he has. But to turn around so quickly from not being able to win a game against me to dominating me in every game was impressive.
One striking thing about Gen Alpha and young Zoomers is how RAPIDLY they learn. Being young is like being on learning-focused anabolic steroid #1 + online programs and AI are like learning-focused anabolic steroid #2. It's really impressive. Take any "time to learn" estimate you have, like "2 years to become good at chess", and today's young people can slice it by 10x.
I agree with that, but one of the core lessons I've learned over my career in technology is that iteration rates are critical for learning. The shorter you can get the feedback loop, the faster you'll learn and advance. Companies that release software once a year or every other year are objectively terrible at it versus companies who release weekly or even daily. Bullet chess and online poker drastically shorten the feedback loop for those games compared to the "traditional" method of playing.
I think the only thing that's going to change is expectation around deliverables.
I don't need an L4 to crack out some dirty code now, I'll let an agent do it so the L4 can level their skills up grinding harder problems.
r/LinkedInLunatics is leaking again.
That said I'm glad this founder is able to micromanage his AI, they sound like a very problematic person to actually work with as an engineer, and if screaming into the void of AI means he is no longer sending vague poorly worded demands, I guess that alone might be worth it
“I believe I’m at the forefront of a trend…” Trademark LinkedIn. We’re all swimming in a sea of grifters.
LOL. AI is currently like a mid-level average to good engr who can write good code but ocassionally goes off the rails. Any engr on a team with those characteristics would be heavily vetted in reviews. Almost like a smart CS intern.
If AI was amazing senior level engr, it would be a different story.
Its not AI that took the junior roles, it's low supply of positions so the more experienced out-compete the juniors
Your take on outdated university curricula totally hits the bulls eye here. We gotta revamp academic programs to match the fast-paced industry tech development and new trends. Junior roles are key, we just changed what the jr role needs to do - prompt, check, re-run, verify... but we need fresh grads ready to crush it with cutting-edge skills.
Universities aren't job training. Universities are for getting foundational academic skills. You can use that to get a great foundation for applied knowledge, but that's not what they are for. Universities are measured by publications.
During my internship my placement suggested on the feedback form at the end of term a focus on more upcoming skills like Flash, Silverlight, and Aero. 3 years ago we'd be telling students to learn blockchain. My education, which included foundational aspects like OS, ended up being more important when containers came around, even when it was "obvious" that Windows was the only OS anyone will use now.
Universities are higher level foundations just like elementary and high school. Not job training. Best course is to get you four year, and then take a year or two for bootcamps and/or community college to get whatever is currently hot and disposable.
A large chunk of junior roles have vanished. Tech is neither a lucrative nor an interesting career anymore.
Prompting until you get a somewhat working solution is boring af. I dont want to tell an LLM what to code i want to do it myself. In every bullet point he has the AI word in it.
Pulling the lever of LLM until you see a winning combination is what programming will become. Only the minority will remember the engineering skills.
That is incredibly depressing.
> First, let's be clear, AI agents do remove roles. At previous companies I founded, I needed a team of developers to build a robust website, integrate it into deployment pipelines, configure hosting, make the UI look good, and handle all the moving parts. I needed marketers to create content, design images in Figma, Canva, and Photoshop, manually research, and write notes to customers and prospects. Now, AI agents can handle a huge portion of that.
I don't believe a word of this. If you replaced your marketers and designers with ChatGPT and a SVG generator, then you shouldn't act surprised when your marketing doesn't work. Your entire thesis statement of "AI agents do remove roles" is unfounded if you refuse to show us metrics to qualitatively compare the success of AI versus human marketing.
How do you know that AI isn't the reason your startups fail to find traction in an AI-saturated market? Do any of your businesses exhibit self-evident runaway success because of AI? It doesn't even sound like you're measuring.
I agree that AI does not replace the best people in those roles. It can do an average to good job. Maybe it can reach top 40% of the industry? If you need the best UI or best marketing, humans are still netter. Those top human jobs won't go away for a while.
With that in mind, if you just need average to good, AI can do a good job at a tiny fraction of the cost. So the average to good roles will start getting replaced.
As examples, the sites tellmel.ai, and rivalsee.com for example were created without needing a UI or frontend designer. In the past I would have needed to hire a UI employee or consultant to do either of those at a very large expense (especially for the really good ones).
"Right. And where, exactly, do you think senior developers come from?"
The role of a junior will shift senior, thanks to AI leverage.
The expected knowledge of a junior will shift senior, thanks to AI broadening what one person can do.
The amount one junior can accomplish will increase thanks to AI.
These things have been trends for decades. AI just keeps them going.
This is bullshit. Junior roles have already been extinct for quite a long time now.
No place that's hiring will give you the time of day until you already have the word "Senior" in your title. But no one can explain where Seniors are supposed to come from though.
We have a floor full of interns right now. Our India and Mexico offices do as well. Some of them will probably be offered full-time roles.
I hired a junior engineering a few years ago. And have done every few years for about a decade.
I work at a mid-size, PE-owned company that's been around for 50+ years, that operates in the enterprise SaaS space. Junior roles aren't going anywhere. But, the expectations of those junior hires will change (as they have evolved since I was junior myself, way back in the 90s).
Will AI change how we hire and retain talent? Of course.
We, at a large Dutch bank, also do have 20+ interns but 0 positions for them in IT department. Leadership is projecting that if you do well in internship then you'll be hired. But no interns were hired in last 2 years...
That is a great example of the kind of bullshit I'm talking about.
How exactly are people supposed to reach a senior level if they aren't allowed to be junior developers first?
People have been asking the executive class this for a long while now: why don’t you care about training? Their response has ever been silence or threats or that’s what school is for. Do it on your own time, after the 50+ hours we demand from you. Some places get it and had a proper pipeline to train. A vast majority do not. And now they give us this. Great bunch of folks.
Key phrase is you hired them a few years ago. That’s not helpful in the discussion now.
Edit: Missed this was in response to “extinct for a long time” which makes more sense. It is true that it is an entirely different world than three years ago.
Unpaid 20-something interns fresh out of college are not quite the same thing as what I am referring to when I say junior software developer.
We pay our interns, as required by local law.
Yeah right now that's certainly true.
But my belief is those companies will soon realize that some of the people who they thought were junior are pretty adept at AI management - more adept than the senior people. And that skill will suddenly be more in demand than how well you can code an optimized sorting algorithm.
Some will get there faster than others of course. But AI is changing things so quickly that it may happen faster than we think, given the state right now.
I don't mean right now, I mean going as far back as 2018 at least when I had to go through a brutal slog over many months to get my first gig as a new software dev. I eventually ended up in a midlevel role and had to grow into it (I still feel like I found a Willy Wonka golden ticket).
But it is infuriating to see people suggest that there is such a thing as junior level positions and that companies actually want to hire junior level people. That has been absolutely false for a very long time.
Totally fair. Sorry you had to go through that.
Yeah the joke is companies want to hire someone who is already an expert in that role who is curious and a fast learner, without realizing that if someone is already an expert who is curious and a fast learner, they probably want a different role to grow into.
I don't mean to shit on your article. I think the general gist of it is correct; what it means to be a software developer is going to radically change for all levels, not just we mere mortals without the magical word "Senior" in our titles. Being fluent in prompting and supervising AI agents are going to be more of the day to day than cranking out lines of code.
I'm just (I think justifiably) a little salty because not that long ago LEARN TO CODE!!! was the mantra for those who wanted to step up into a middle class life and now every executive and their mother is frothing at the mouth over shoehorning AI into anything and everything and pulling up what little of the career ladder exists while they're at it.
Yeah people still need to learn to code. Anyone frothing at the mouth needs to see a doctor.