Not on laptops, which you'll be using if you are on call. It's even worse if you don't the eyes of a 20 something year old and have the text scaled up a bit.
Somewhat offtopic, but I call these articles "parading the idiot". Where a newspaper or other media outlet runs an article interviewing a person where the subject is clearly out of step with everyone else in their assumptions.
See also articles where a property investor complains about how hard they are doing financially because they have to sell one of their eighteen investment properties.
My take for SE roles is that it's a combination of AI giving enough gains[0] to reduce head count requirements, combined with the higher interest rates cutting off the tap of free money for startups that never really made economic sense.
There's also the absolute flood of CS graduates in recent years contributing to the number of applicants. I know governments have been screaming for more STEM graduates, but I suspect the numbers are far higher than what is actually required.
IMHO, the outcome of all this is that those devs who can't actually code are going to be pushed out of the SE market, and things will normalise in 12-36 months.
(I say this all this sitting on the couch waiting for the results of second of three interviews after submitting my 30th application - I've literally never had to submit more than five - and that was where I didn't get poached directly.)
[0] I'm not going to say it's a _massive_ gain, but even a 10-20% increase in productivity from something off the shelf like Github Co-pilot would show up in employment numbers
With respect to hiring, of the two points you mention - AI productivity gains for SWE and "no more free money" - I'm confident it's solely the latter, that higher interest rates cut off free money from startups, so they need to be more careful about who they hire. Additionally, there was substantial overhiring during COVID which combined with the interest rate changes lead to a lot of layoffs, and subsequently lead to the conservative hiring in a lot of companies. This leads to a lot more competition than there was previously, both to even get an interview in the first place and to get to the end with an offer.
It's possible that AI may have some kind of impact on the industry too with respect to productivity, but I'd bet that it's nowhere near a 10-20% gain and it's not a factor at all in the difficulty of finding a job.
I agree. Working as a manager in the industry my take is that AI has had a near-zero actual increase in SE productivity. That’s not to say the C-level perception matches that actual number though. It hasn’t happened at my company but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some layoffs from big companies were driven by that perception. I would interpret more as an excuse to get rid of low performers in general.
I think LLMs spitting out code will probably supercharge the "if engineering showed a toy demo, that means we're 90% done and can start taking pre-orders" problem.
I seem to remember a story that there was a lot of “defensive hiring” — you would hire a lot of technical people to keep them from starting or joining a disruptive startup. This would be a corollary of your higher interest rates pushing down employment by not allowing funding to flow to startups, but the end of such defensive hiring would serve to amplify the drop in hiring beyond just startup personnel.
> It's possible that AI may have some kind of impact on the industry too with respect to productivity, but I'd bet that it's nowhere near a 10-20% gain and it's not a factor at all in the difficulty of finding a job.
I'm not going to make any claim on the actual gain in productivity. My sample size of one for what was sometimes quite repetitive work is a very bad sample.
However, regardless of all other factors (let alone combined with them), I would say that AI has made getting a job far more difficult as AI gives people far more ability to shotgun every single job ad out there.
I recently spoke to a recruiter who indicated that for a Senior Golang Dev role in Australia, he had received 400 applications. There is no-where near 400 spare senior Golang devs in this city.
I second this explanation. In fact its not just startups but also a lot of big tech companies were rationally taking advantage of the low interest rates to pursue speculative bets/product features. Tech CEOs were being richly rewarded via inflating stock prices for chasing the potential for future cashflows.
When the macro changed, those bets no longer made rational sense.
The silver lining for guys like Jon Bach (as described in the intro) is that with the abundance of free agents and SF/SV office space, it's probably the a great time to form/find an ambitious team and help try to bootstrap the next Google.
Surely the section 174 changes in Trump's tax bill have to be a part of this as well. Since engineer salaries now have to be deducted as an expense amortized over 5 years rather than in the same year they were incurred, smaller companies with revenue that may not be profitable will still be taxed as if they are.
The use of Copilot and similar tools has been explicitly banned where I worked - we tested it out and the gains were minimal if any, and the possible cost of liability and licensing considered not worth it. There is no short-term intent to re-assess this either.
I was recently laid off with "Efficiencies gained by AI" explicitly stated as one of the reasons.
Either it's complete PR BS (most likely), or C-level execs are putting the cart before the horse - preparing for "productivity gains" that haven't actually materialized.
I have found Copilot to be useful enough to use if someone else pays for it. In some cases it was useful (writing Golang functions that perform basic SQL CRUD functions). Others times, not so much.
As I said above, I'm not claiming it's a massive increase, only that it is there. If AI moved the productivity needle 2%, and a given market has 100,000 software engineers, then that's possibly 2000 devs that are spamming the heck out of every job out there.
> Either it's complete PR BS (most likely), or C-level execs are putting the cart before the horse - preparing for "productivity gains" that haven't actually materialized.
Honestly, I suspect the industry I'm in (System Software/Driver Development) is a poor fit for the current state of "AI Assistants" - there's too much specific that's just not got the depth of training data to "learn" from, it's a mature system so not much "boilerplate" needs to be generated, and much of the real complexity is managing the state of the hardware interface and expectations from a constantly-changing documented-mostly-in-some-hardware-engineer's-head-only specification. Or time debugging why the stated specification doesn't actually match the behavior of the hardware.
I don't think anyone in our group who was asked to trial it had much positive to say about it in that situation.
> My take for SE roles is that it's a combination of AI giving enough gains[0] to reduce head count requirements
It is not giving enough gains. It is only giving ammunition to board members and execs to cut headcount.
What is really happening is that the current cohort of tech companies has been living in the era of free money for so long that they have forgotten competent practices. They only thing they learned was more headcount==more revenue. This was partially possible by delivering large number of features and charging for each one of them e.g. AWS has a ton of useless crap services.
Of course that is horseshit logic that only worked in the era of free money. And of course market caps going up, up, and away was fantasy. At some point, markets shift and cannot be tapped any further. And that is what is causing headcount reduction - there are no saleable features to produce.
There is still a large amount of maintenance to do. But companies loathe paying for maintenance. They'd rather have customers suffer and quit than pay up front for headcount to maintain what has been built in the last decade. They would much rather scam customers with poor billing practices than provide quality and support.
Thus, we end up with lower headcount, lower quality, and a generally third world quality existence - all because execs want to protect margins over anything else aka shareholder primacy.
Everyone has been trying to get into tech for the last 4 years.
My wife works in healthcare. There are whole facebook groups dedicated to healthcare workers trying to transition into tech. A lot of these people are clinicians (Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Speech Pathologists, etc).
There are a lot of people looking for WFH jobs and tech seems to be where they turn first. Honestly, I blame the glut of low effort "Day in the life of a Software Engineer" youtube videos where the "worker" spends most of the video walking their dog and going for a casual afternoon jog while fast forwarding through the actual work. There has been a lot of glamorizing of tech jobs on social media that doesn't typically really match reality.
Obviously, we all know about the trend of bootcamps promising six figure jobs after 2 months (though that seems to have tapered off a bit).
I've read a lot of resumes over the last 4 years and I feel like I've seen it all. I've had multiple senior developer openings and I've seen resumes with just about every background you can think of. Waiters, fast food workers, mechanics, pest control, construction workers. No actual real word programming experience, only a list of a few bootcamp group projects with a link to a github profile where they pushed their bootcamp homework. It was especially bad if you included React in the job description at all (I noticed a dramatic reduction in these types of resumes when the job description focused on backend work).
It reminds of that anecdote about stock bubbles: when your taxi driver is giving you stock tips then you know its time to sell. Well, when your waiter is talking to you about JavaScript because you wore an AWS shirt to dinner, you know that we're in a tech hiring bubble that is going to pop.
There are/were a lot of people looking for tech jobs that frankly have no business doing so. Some of them may have spent 5 figures on a bootcamp of dubious value.
Doesn't match reality at all. If only these people can see the daily insanity. I just got through 2 weeks, where at the end the owner of the company had to ask me why I haven't had much progress and trying to explain that everyday for the last two weeks he has shifted the requirements so much, anything I wrote had to get thrown out the window. Literally, get updated requirements, get 75% of the way through implementation. Bam, email in my inbox telling me to forget what was last said and do something completely different.
The best way to deal with such insanity is to slow down: get requirements, "design" for a few days, if requirements change "design" a few more days etc. Furious coding just burns you out, and not much progress is made in any case.
Yeah these people graduating from boot camps are super naive from my experience. Every single project is a ruby on rails twitter clone. Yawn. What happened to doing something novel or applying code to a personal interest? If you love to hike or bike, make some snazzy app with GIS involved. If you like to tinker with smart home stuff, show me something interesting with arduino or pi.
Sadly, HR doing pre-screening does not understand GIS or PI/Arduino, they do keyword match over known things, mostly known PL, popular framework, something stating that said tech were used in some activities.
If they can’t pass through pre-screen, what use is the cool projects? Besides, bootcamps must make life easy and fun, teaching anything outside packaged topics will scare away the students and the revenue.
If I were Waymo, I’d try to gain some market majority(or competitive majority, e.g. taxi vs uber), and then slowly start test pilot of showing ads while the ride is running…
Or even audio ads works, pretend it to be radio fully generated with generative AI and inject subtle ads.
Providing stock tips have zero revenue possibilities, but could be useful to have a channel talking about stock market movement today and what the experts are thinking.
Let alone startups - the higher interest rates are hurting everyone across the board. For example in my world - Telco Infra and MSPs which did a lot of Capex spend in light of 5G deployments aren't able to keep up with the interest rate hikes putting pressure on repayments for cash raised for the spectrum auction spend and the like. 5G FWA may be in the industry news, but there hasn't been a killer application that has allowed for revenue growth to match those payments. Only way to handle that has been layoffs.
I've been thinking about the AI gains a lot. If individual developers became, say, 20 percent more efficient at coding, the organization would potentially see even more gains, because all of the reduction in time spent coordinating between people. I.e. a 2-man task that needed 20 man-hours of work, 8 of which hours of work were just communicating, becomes a 1-man 10 hour task. Kind of an extreme example, but communication and coordination is extremely inefficient a lot of the time!
After 24 months of LLM code seeding very subtle and confusing bugs into production codebases, the cracks will start to show, and we’ll probably need to hire 2x as many engineers to unwind the mess.
> There's also the absolute flood of CS graduates in recent years contributing to the number of applicants. I know governments have been screaming for more STEM graduates, but I suspect the numbers are far higher than what is actually required.
Alot of these grads want fancy silicon valley free lunch ping pong jobs. Those are super competitive. Cities across the US have plenty of "boring" software jobs - in medical billing software, at insurance companies, at credit unions, for hospitals, in defense, etc. But those aren't in SF bay area or Seattle or NYC or wherever these young people want to live.
Parent poster a-french-anon may be wrong or at least is making unsubstantiated wishful claims about costs and benefits - "the errors would be extremely rare" - would they really? And would they be evenly spread over in-groups and out-groups?
But at least the question "how is that acceptable?" is in fact a question of a moral nature. It's unacceptable, but it is unacceptable because it is immoral.
How is any error rate, no matter how small, acceptable when it comes to locking people up for the rest of their lives?
While I don't like the death penalty I don't think it's that different from a very long sentence. I don't think it makes sense to say that any punishment needs an absolutely perfect error rate.
I agree with most of this list, and I'd add some kind of null coalescing or ternary operator, even if it was limited to one operater per expression, and a date time handling library that doesn't make me want to pull.my hair out.
There's several things that keep me on Go, single binary, decent built in tooling, and decent speed.
I've started playing around with tinygo on Pi Pico's, and after the dealing with getting C and C++ onto other MCUs it's a breath of fresh air.
But the rough edges are very rough. At some point another language is going to come along with better syntax with the same single binary and good tooling and I'll probably switch over as fast as possible.
Alongside the other reasons mentioned (comfort, right of ways, dedicated corridors), it's blatantly obvious where trams run due to the tracks in the ground.
With a bus, there's always the potential the route has changed, or your specific bus is skipping over your stop for some reason. With a tram, even if you've never been to that city or part of the city before, you know there's going to be a tram along those tracks, and you simply need to walk along the road till you find the stop.
I've run various meetups in the past, some of which have been successful, some not.
The biggest thing I learned was that you if you start it, you have to drive it. If you take a few months off, don't expect anyone else to pick it up and run with it, even if they offer and you give them the keys to do so.
Nowadays I don't have time for anything too involved. Instead of meetup.com, I "run" a small private group (which is me with a mailing list and a google calendar invite) of remote IT workers in Inner North Melbourne (AU) who catch up for beers once a month (email in my profile for details) It's surprisingly better in some ways. The group is tighter, and there's far less stress.
> Usually any given country will have one big spot for tech... ...My guess is that Melbourne is not a very good spot.
It's not an unreasonable assumption, but in this case it's incorrect. Sydney has more tech work, but only in proportion to its larger size.
That said, Melbourne tech work is very heavily (but not exclusively) orientated around finance, insurance, real estate and so on which is not everyone's cup of tea.
I've clocked ~40 years in Australian tech and managed to avoid all of those domains, web development, cubicle farms, and nearly (but not quite) office politics.
Could be why I still have all my hair and good health.
> Could be why I still have all my hair and good health.
If you just mean in regards to stress, then working tech at an insurance company is a pretty low-stress job from my experience.
Finance can be pretty low-stress too in certain sectors. Like I've been working for a wealth management and investment analysis company, and haven't worked more than a 40 hour work week in years, with lots of flexibility during work to go to appointments or run errands, and while we have sprints, they're very malleable, and the real deadlines are more on a quarterly level, and they try to be conservative with their quarterly goals to make sure they hit them.
Now if you meant as far as life fulfillment? Yeah I get that. But I at least have some other things outside of work I can pursue.
More that I've never been much of a fan of working in offices, I like the outdoor life and have done a great deal of coding "on the move" while transitioning old paper mapping systems to WGS84, building and field testing exploration geophysics instrumentation, aquisition and processing software, tagging and tracking trucks and animals in mining and agriculture, and building energy and mineral resource intelligence systems for use and then sale.
I've even managed to squeeze in some work on Cayley|Magma in Sydney (long ago) which is kind of fun as it still seems relevant today, being used to crack Quantum crypto candidates.
I've had burst of planes, trains, and automobiles with a lot of travel about the globe, which I've enjoyed, and long stretches of working from home since I started in the 1980s .. circles and arrows on the back of envelopes, coding and then working in sheds, building etc.
Doesn't work as a lifestyle for everyone but it has for me.
No that sounds awesome, and much more interesting than what I'm working on. Congrats!
I am working from an office, but at least it's a home office. I can crack a window for fresh air, and look out at the prairie beyond my backyard from my office window. When the weather is nicer I sometimes start the work day out on the patio.
