Or you can just learn a handful of puzzle patterns in exchange for more job opportunities that would have the potential for higher overall pay. Seems like a fair trade to me.
It just feels obstinate to me. Most people will jump through all sort of bureaucratic/performative hoops when they're in a job to keep it or angle for promotions/minor raises, but this one that has a much higher average RoI turns them off. If you put your foot down on that sort of thing too then fair enough I suppose.
To be fair though, I don’t really want a Big Tech job. Several of the FAANGs, especially Facebook, are morally objectionable to me and I would switch careers before working for them. Most others have shitty working conditions with in-office policies, open office layouts, etc, that are detrimental to me getting work done.
So it’s not just about the financial RoI for me.
And I think I’m at least consistent: I’ve never been one to jump through hoops for raises or promotions either.
At least that ai slop makes money. I’ve seen human-created slop make nothing and still require the same effort and cost to uplift architecture/code to a useable state.
I tend to agree, but at the end of the day I am providing for my family first and foremost.
This means having to knock out tasks each sprint, whether they tickle my fancy or not. If I can offload that work to the AI “agent”, then so be it.
I don’t feel the need to make my vocation a core part of my identity, so the time savings is worth more than elegantly crafted code or whatever other intrinsic value comes from a hand crafted solution.
What will happen to your salary in four years if that process works (which I doubt, but let's assume it)?
This is similar to the rage from 2010-2022 when developers, often at the behest of their employers, enthusiastically promoted the idea than everyone needs to learn how to code.
makes sense tbh. i’ve seen teams take that approach and only think about cost once it’s already a problem. ever had that come back to cause issues later?
reply