Is the implication that currently it is rare to get a well-explained, fully detailed account of what someone wants, necessitating you as a "translator" of poorly specified requirements to features that actually solve the problems people are having?
My question is, is that thing which you are doing, ascertaining the subtle concerns, soliciting requirements, etc. truly out of the range of what an LLM or LLM-guided system could do?
Stepping back from LLMs, look at other jobs that could have been fully automated using technology, but haven't. Some jobs, like a grocery cashier could be automated with self check, or waiters could be replaced with phone ordering. We still have humans in these roles, decades after they could have been replaced.
I think many of the jobs which aren't completely automated, but could be automated based on a explicit reading of their job requirements, are due to many implicit requirements being part of the job.
For cashiers, beyond simply ringing up customers, they serve the function of:
1. Validating IDs
2. Preventing theft
3. Creating a positive atmosphere
4. Helping customers bag groceries
5. Resolving issues/questions about products/the store
For waiters, likewise they have the job of
1. Creating a positive atmosphere
2. Physically bringing food to the table and setting the meal
3. Upselling items, providing recommendations, catering to specific unusual guest needs
etc. Basically all these jobs have a huge soft-skills dependent interface which no technology currently can replicate what humans can do.
I don't think that every job can be trivially automated by a large language model, but any job where the inputs/outputs are entirely via a computer, LLM's are approaching the point where they are equivalently enabled to a human, and there is no "real human body in-person" soft-skills interface.
When I worked at Disney, there were some jobs where people's entire jobs were compiling reports and following up with various departments. Like taking lists of security vulnerabilities from scans and getting commitment dates to fix them. They would take the data out of one system and put it in a spreadsheet. Then they would reach out and create Jira tickets for the teams responsible and then schedule meetings if necessary to discuss. These roles are definitely at risk.
Even in the US which lags behind in this area it would be obscene to claim that grocery cashiers aren't being actively replaced. That's just not connected to reality. Most grocery stores I've been in have essentially 1 open lane with a human where there used to be a half dozen. You might as well say that airline ticket agents haven't been replaced.
What if the best "person" to operate an LLM is an LLM itself, or more precisely an agentic loop driven by an LLM? DO you believe this won't be the case?
> The CEO of the company is not going to be directing the LLM
Why not? Many CEOs are prompting LLMs and coding agents directly. What happens when the CEO -> LLM interaction is more efficient than CEO -> product person -> LLM?
> If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
Why couldn't a software company be completely automated with sufficiently powerful LLM-run agents? What fundamentally is the barrier, if the models are intelligent enough?
I write guides for immigrants moving to Germany. I focus on the undocumented and unpredictable parts of German bureaucracy.
The stuff I document is happening offline behind closed doors. I create tools and leverage my contacts and audience to surface that information.
Then LLMs suck up that information and serves it to users without attribution or consent, and that is destroying the economics of doing my job.
But the job still needs to be done.
Depends a lot on how expensive they are to run
Interesting how we’re using passive language here.
LLMs do not replace jobs, managers constantly try to increase profit. Managers and business owners try to replace people’s jobs via automation.
LLM companies actively try to convince managers and business owners that LLMs are capable of replacing humans in white collar jobs.
An LLM/AI will not replace you, or me.
A business owner or manager might. They also might use an LLM to make decisions.
But let’s not use language which anctively obscures the decision makers in this process.
I am self-employed and AI is taking my job. Or at least its owners are capturing the value of my work now.
https://nicolasbouliane.com/blog/death-by-ai
Only chumps believe them when they say there’s not a choice. I haven’t seen a single manager take a pay cut for doing a layoff after their decisions.
LLMs will probably get to a point where anyone who provides a well explained, fully detailed account of what they want can get it.
My job is safe.
Is the implication that currently it is rare to get a well-explained, fully detailed account of what someone wants, necessitating you as a "translator" of poorly specified requirements to features that actually solve the problems people are having?
My question is, is that thing which you are doing, ascertaining the subtle concerns, soliciting requirements, etc. truly out of the range of what an LLM or LLM-guided system could do?
Stepping back from LLMs, look at other jobs that could have been fully automated using technology, but haven't. Some jobs, like a grocery cashier could be automated with self check, or waiters could be replaced with phone ordering. We still have humans in these roles, decades after they could have been replaced.
I think many of the jobs which aren't completely automated, but could be automated based on a explicit reading of their job requirements, are due to many implicit requirements being part of the job.
For cashiers, beyond simply ringing up customers, they serve the function of:
1. Validating IDs
2. Preventing theft
3. Creating a positive atmosphere
4. Helping customers bag groceries
5. Resolving issues/questions about products/the store
For waiters, likewise they have the job of
1. Creating a positive atmosphere
2. Physically bringing food to the table and setting the meal
3. Upselling items, providing recommendations, catering to specific unusual guest needs
etc. Basically all these jobs have a huge soft-skills dependent interface which no technology currently can replicate what humans can do.
I don't think that every job can be trivially automated by a large language model, but any job where the inputs/outputs are entirely via a computer, LLM's are approaching the point where they are equivalently enabled to a human, and there is no "real human body in-person" soft-skills interface.
When I worked at Disney, there were some jobs where people's entire jobs were compiling reports and following up with various departments. Like taking lists of security vulnerabilities from scans and getting commitment dates to fix them. They would take the data out of one system and put it in a spreadsheet. Then they would reach out and create Jira tickets for the teams responsible and then schedule meetings if necessary to discuss. These roles are definitely at risk.
Even in the US which lags behind in this area it would be obscene to claim that grocery cashiers aren't being actively replaced. That's just not connected to reality. Most grocery stores I've been in have essentially 1 open lane with a human where there used to be a half dozen. You might as well say that airline ticket agents haven't been replaced.
Even if we assume extreme case where coding is only done by 99% LLMs in the future
Who is the best possible person you could hire to operate the LLM?
Who has a good mental model of what its doing underneath and has the best expertise to direct/guide it?
IMO no one is better positioned to use these tools than software engineers
What if the best "person" to operate an LLM is an LLM itself, or more precisely an agentic loop driven by an LLM? DO you believe this won't be the case?
The CEO of the company is not going to be directing the LLM
At minimum you at least need CEO -> product person -> LLM
There can any number of agents/loops after that but someone has to translate the requirements to the LLM and monitor/verify the results.
What I'm saying is in the extreme case the SE evolves to become the product person.
If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
> The CEO of the company is not going to be directing the LLM Why not? Many CEOs are prompting LLMs and coding agents directly. What happens when the CEO -> LLM interaction is more efficient than CEO -> product person -> LLM?
> If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
Why couldn't a software company be completely automated with sufficiently powerful LLM-run agents? What fundamentally is the barrier, if the models are intelligent enough?
Because then you're just describing AGI not LLMs, which in the short term is obviously not happening
Long term maybe but its not a very interesting conversation to talk about things that far out.
what are your definitions of “long term” and “short term” with respect to number of years
"IMO no one is better positioned to use these tools than software engineers"
Yes.1 where there used to be 1000.And they are the cream of the crop.Their time is precious because their skills are equally so.
Are you out coding the LLM's even now, or do they already do what took you weeks, in hours?
While you are scoping out the scene and hesitating whether to tell the boss you will have it in two or three weeks, LLM got it done 5 minutes ago.
Now off to the other massive LLM Super Code Reviewer.
The off to the Mega Brain Ultra talented human coding team of one or a handful for the human touch.
Are you the cream of the crop?
If not, start making contingencies ...or cope harder.
Wake up!
a single LLM isn't the threat, a thousand coordinated ones are
No. The only defense is societal.
"AI models are rapidly getting better." How many times are we going to keep hearing this? Give the horse the dang carrot!
I'm so tired of hearing about AI.
I still don't know why people are saying this. I don't really code but from what I've heard on here the models haven't improved since Opus 4.5
>How many times are we going to keep hearing this?
Until it's no longer true
AI models are rapidly getting better… at creating an unstoppable tide of hype about AI models rapidly getting better.
ppl said same thing about cloud, smartphones, n the internet dude the signal is usually hidden inside the hype
programming is the side car to a professional license which is domain knowledge + active ethically required professional license.
... because I'm not defined solely by "intelligence".
What is your job?