I've handled the sloppiest slop with llms and turned the worst code into error free modern and tested code in a fraction of the time it used to take me.
People aren't worried about cost because $1k in credits to get 6 months of work done is a no brainer.
A year from not semi-autonomous llms will produce entire applications while we sleep. We'll all be running multi-agents and basically write specs and md files all day.
i’ve become convinced that the devs that talk about having to fix the code are the same ones that would make incredibly poor managers. when you manage a team you need to be focused on the effect of the code not the small details.
this sort of developer in a pair programming exercise would find themselves flustered at how a junior approached problem solving and just fix it themselves. i strongly suspect the loss of a feeling of control is at play here.
I just had an issue where Opus misspelled variable names between usages. These are fundamental and elementary mistakes that make me deeply distrust anything slightly more complex that comes out of it.
It's great for suggesting approaches, but the code it generates looks like it doesn't actually have understanding (which is correct).
I can't trust what it writes, and if I have to go through it all with a fine toothed comb, I may as well write the code myself.
So my conclusion is that it's a very powerful research tool, and an atrocious junior developer who has dyslexia and issues with memory.
I guess yours might have been intended to be a facetious comment, but a quick google for designer weaving shows up a UK company as the first hit for me that sells their work for approximately $1500 per square foot.
If the demand for this work is high, maybe the individual workers aren't earning $100k per year, but the owner of the company who presumably was/is a weaver might well be earning that much.
What the loom has done is made the repeatable mass production of items cheap and convenient. What used to be a very expensive purchase is now available to more people at a significantly cheaper price, so probably the profits of the companies making them are about the same or higher, just on a higher volume.
It hasn't entirely removed the market for high end quality weaving, although it probably has reduced the number of people buying high-end bespoke items if they can buy a "good enough" item much cheaper.
But having said that, I don't think weavers were on the inflation-adjusted equivalent of 100k before the loom either. They may have been skilled artisans, but that doesn't mean the majority were paid multiples above an average wage.
The current price bubble for programming salaries is based on the high salaries being worth paying for a company who can leverage that person to produce software that can earn the company significantly more than that salary, coupled with the historic demand for good programmers exceeding supply.
I'm sure that even if the bulk of programming jobs disappear because people can produce "good enough" software for their purposes using AI, there will always be a requirement for highly skilled specialists to do what AI can't, or from companies that want a higher confidence that the code is correct/maintainable than AI can provide.
reply