"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.
Scroll further down (specifically to the section titled "Wait, $1,000/day per engineer?"). The quote in the quoted article (so from the original source in factory.strongdm.ai) could potentially be read either way, but Simon Willison (the direct link) absolutely is interpreting it as $1000/dev/day. I also think $1000/dev/day is the intended meaning in the strongdm article.
[write a joke about thinking machines and the idea of tropes]
it's funny how enemies to lovers is a common trope that's uncommon in real life and lovers to enemies is an uncommon trope that's common in real life
I think the word "funny" in that line, is being used in a common way to mean "ironic". Which is both good use of language, insightful and accurate, but not actually funny.
If choosing the "wrong" model, or not wording your prompt in just the right way, is sufficient to not just degrade your output but make it actively misleading and worse than useless, then what does that say about the narrative that all this sort of work is about to be replaced?
I see a lot of the same (well thought out) pushback on here whenever these kinds of blind hype articles pop up.
But my biggest objection to this "engineering is over" take is one that I don't see much. Maybe this is just my Big Tech glasses, but I feel like for a large, mature product, if you break down the time and effort required to bring a change to production, the actual writing of code is like... ten, maybe twenty percent of it?
Sure, you can bring "agents" to bear on other parts of the process to some degree or another. But their value to the design and specification process, or to live experiment, analysis, and iteration, is just dramatically less than in the coding process (which is already overstated). And that's without even getting into communication and coordination across the company, which is typically the real limiting factor, and in which heavy LLM usage almost exclusively makes things worse.
Takes like this seem to just have a completely different understanding of what "software development" even means than I do, and I'm not sure how to reconcile it.
To be clear, I think these tools absolutely have a place, and I use them where appropriate and often get value out of them. They're part of the field for good, no question. But this take that it's a replacement for engineering, rather than an engineering power tool, consistently feels like it's coming from a perspective that has never worked on supporting a real product with real users.
I'm not sure you're actually in disagreement with the author of this piece at all.
They didn't say that software engineering is over - they said:
> Software development, as it has been done for decades, is over.
You argue that writing code is 10-20% of the craft. That's the point they are making too! They're framing the rest of it as the "talking", which is now even more important than it was before thanks to the writing-the-code bit being so much cheaper.
When we say generating code is only a small percentage, that does not imply that the rest is just talking. Simon, you were part of a relatively small fast moving project in Django and the news website it powered, with from I understand a pretty small team. Have you worked as part of a team of 10, 20, 100, 1000 engineers? It's different.
"Talking" here doesn't literally mean talking. It means figuring out the scope of the problem, researching solutions, communicating with stakeholders, debating architecture, building exploratory prototypes, breaking down projects - it's all the stuff that isn't writing the code.
I've worked at various sizes of organization. Most notably I joined Eventbrite when they were less than 100 developers and stayed while they grew to around 1,000.
> Software development, as it has been done for decades, is over.
Simon I guess vb-8558's comment inn here is something which is really nice (definitely worth a read) and they mention how much coding has changed from say 1995 to 2005 to 2015 to 2025
Directly copying line from their comment here : For sure, we are going through some big changes, but there is no "as it has been done for decades".
My (point?) is that this pure mentality of code is cheap show me the talk is weird/net negative (even if I may talk more than I code) simply because code and coding practices are something that I can learn over my experience and hone in whereas talk itself constitutes to me as non engineers trying to create software and that's all great but not really understanding the limitations (that still exist)
So the point I am trying to make is that I feel as if when the OP mentioned code is 10-20% of the craft, they didn't mean the rest is talk. They meant all the rest are architectural decisions & just everything surrounding the code. Quite frankly, the idea behind Ai/LLM's is to automate that too and convert it into pure text and I feel like the average layman significantly overestimates what AI can and cannot do.
So the whole notion of show me the talk atleast in a more non engineering background as more people try might be net negative not really understanding the tech as is and quite frankly even engineers are having a hard time catching up with all which is happening.
I do feel like that the AI industry just has too many words floating right now. To be honest, I don't want to talk right now, let me use the tool and see how it goes and have a moment of silence. The whole industry is moving faster than the days till average js framework days.
To have a catchy end to my comment: There is just too much talk nowadays. Show me the trust.
I do feel like information has become saturated and we are transitioning from the "information" age to "trust" age. Human connections between businesses and elsewhere matter the most right now more than ever. I wish to support projects which are sustainable and fair driven by passion & then I might be okay with AI use case imo.
Yeah in a lot of ways, my assertion is that @
“Code is cheap” actually means the opposite of what everyone thinks it does. Software Engineer is even more about the practices we’ve been developing over the past 20 or so years, not less
Like Linus’ observation still stands. Show me that the code you provided does exactly what you think it should. It’s easy to prompt a few lines into an LLM, it’s another thing to know exactly the way to safely and effectively change low level code.
Liz Fong-Jones told a story on LinkedIn about this at HoneyComb, she got called out for dropping a bad set of PR’s in a repo, because she didn’t really think about the way the change was presented.
> Takes like this seem to just have a completely different understanding of what "software development" even means than I do, and I'm not sure how to reconcile it.
You're absolutely right about coding being less than 20% of the overall effort. In my experience, 10% is closer to the median. This will get reconciled as companies apply LLMs and track the ROI. Over a single year the argument can be made that "We're still learning how to leverage it." Over multiple years the 100x increase in productivity claims will be busted.
We're still on the upslope of Gartner's hype cycle. I'm curious to see how rapidly we descend into the Trough of Disillusionment.
My recent experience demonstrates this. I had a couple weeks of happily cranking out new code and refactors at high speed with Claude’s help, then a week of what felt like total stagnation, and now I’m back to high velocity again.
What happened in the middle was I didn’t know what I wanted. I hadn’t worked out the right data model for the application yet, so I couldn’t tell Claude what to do. And if you tell it to go ahead and write more code at that point, very bad things will start to happen.
Ive been using LLMs through the web to help with discreet pieces of code and scripts for a while now. I’ve been putting it off (out of fear?) but I finally sat down with Claude Code on the console and an empty directory to see what the fuss was about. Over about a total of 4 hrs and maybe $15 pay as you go it became clear things are drastically different now in web dev. I’m not saying changed for good or bad just things have definitely changed and will never go back.
The book Software Engineering at Google makes a distinction between software engineering and programming. The main difference is that software engineering occurs over a longer time span than programming. In this sense, AI tools can make programming faster, but not necessarily software engineering.
Well, let's start by confronting and acknowledging the very strong case that we -- "we" here being the tech world in general, and the audience of this site -- bear a heavy burden of responsibility for it.
It could be argued that it was all inevitable given the development of the Internet: development of social media, the movement online of commerce and other activities that used to heavily involve "incidental" socialization, etc. And maybe it was. But "we" are still the ones who built it. So are "we" really the right ones to solve it, through the same old silicon valley playbook?
The usual thought process of trying to push local "community groups," hobby-based organizations etc is not bad, but I think it misses an important piece of the puzzle, which is that we've started a kind of death spiral, a positive feedback loop suppressing IRL interaction. People started to move online because it was easier, and more immediate than "IRL." But as more people, and a greater fraction of our social interaction moves online, "IRL" in turn becomes even more featureless. There are fewer community groups, fewer friends at the bar or the movies, fewer people open to spontaneous interaction. This, then, drives even more of culture online.
What use is trying to get "back out into the real world," when everyone else has left it too, while you were gone?
Not everyone has left the real world, only the people who got really sucked into the online/social media world. This can maybe seem like the whole world though, if you're in that bubble.
Bars are still packed on the weekends, people still gather at churches, or gyms, or bowling leagues, or book clubs, or any number of other "IRL" activities of all kinds that are going on. You do have to make the effort to go out and get involved though, nobody is going to come and rescue you.
Many of these activities have gotten extremely expensive or just died out in the majority of places. There's 2600 bowling alleys in the US compared to 4000 20 years ago. That's a decline of 35% without accounting for population. Last time I went to a bowling alley the price for a lane without drinks was 100 dollars for an hour and a half. This isn't even in a very high cost of living area. Besides a place like the gym can hardly be considered a place where people gather, most people just see it as something functional and would rather not be disturbed (I believe this has gotten 'worse').
I agree with the fact that it's exaggerated online but when you see these kinda numbers in the vast majority of activities which were affordable for most Americans not too long ago it's not solely to be blamed on individuals.
I believe in the majority of the country things will only get worse with how little value is placed on being involved in things for 'community'. People have gotten more anti-social because of social media (and just media in general).
Most tech workers won't be as impacted by this I assume, they can afford paying 200 dollars for bowling without thinking twice, same with many others of the upper middle class.
If I told you I could save you money on fuel by making your car more efficient, then removed it's engine, you would still call that nonsense no matter how much of a gas guzzler it was before or how little fuel gets put in it now.
You just made a massive non sequitur. The government does have waste, as does any large organization, including in the private sector. Whether or not DOGE saved money needs an independent analysis, not numbers which DOGE itself produces.
Musk and Trump cut a large number of jobs and declared, without any evidence, that it was all fraud and waste. For example, they dismissed everyone who was in a probationary period, claiming these were all low-performing people. In fact, every person hired or promoted was automatically in a probation status. In many cases the fired people turned out to be critical and the government asked them to come back.
Think about this: when Enron exploded, it took a team of forensic accountants months to untangle the bookkeeping. Musk came in with a team of mostly teenage hacker types to siphon all the data from all the agencies he could and in less than 48 hours declared he had found hundreds of billions of dollars of waste and fraud. It beggars belief that Elon Musk just happens to be an accounting expert and could process terabytes of data and make sense of it in a day or two.
Another thing you should know is the founder of Gumroad, a man in his 30s and who joined DOGE in a good-faith effort to help make the government more efficient, found that things were not at all like he expected. Even if you don't believe him, he was closer to the action than Musk, has more technical knowledge than Musk, and if nothing else, offers a counter-narrative from what you apparently have bought:
After expressing his opinions he was quickly sacked by DOGE. Transparency indeed.
Oh, and many (hundreds?) of thousands of people will die each year due to loss of international aid. Meanwhile Musk was dancing around on stage like an idiot with a chainsaw thinking he was the coolest guy.
I witnessed massive fraud first hand in the DoD and the VA (the area this gumroad guy was dealing with) as a Booz Allen contractor.
I worked directly with fraudulent shell 8a firms (literally a big white dude made his Filipino American wife the CEO of like 6 people and then subcontracted to my team with a direct award minority woman owned business contract valued at a $100m).
I witnessed massive waste by VA employees at the joint MHS/VA hospital in North Chicago, IL (they sandbagged an expensive IT modernization that was trying to reduce wait times because it was going to put a bunch of local VA sys admins out of work by shifting to a gov cloud data center).
You don't know what your talking about. You don't have first hand knowledge. Nobody on the ground for years in the Federal sector agrees with you or the gumroad guy. They agree with me.
My twin brother worked at a "Native Owned" defense contractor in Arlington, and literally never saw a Native American in their office a single time. There were employees with Washington Redskins merch everywhere and nobody cared because they KNEW that the single tribe that collected the checks at the top was never going to see the office. They just subbed out work to the big consulting firms anyway.
I have endless examples from working in the beltway for 10 years. Sorry that reality doesn't line up with your political tribal beliefs.
Nonsense in how they approached things. Clinton-era we had govt. cut backs all over the place. It was done according to a plan and according to the law.
This was just a hatchet job, aimed and cutting and gutting any and every agency they thought they could get away with.
Glad to hear it and I wish them luck! I was just clearing up the current status of self-driving vehicles re: the headline. For now they do not work in areas where road surfaces and edges get covered by and location changed by snow. They do not work "Around the US".
> This feels forced, there are obvious and good reasons for running that experiment. Namely, learning how it fails and to generate some potentially viral content for investor relationship. The second one seems like an extremely good business move. It is also a great business move from WSJ, get access to some of that investor money in an obviously sponsored content bit that could go viral.
That's... exactly what the author said in the post. But with the argument that those are cynical and terrible reasons. I think it's pretty clear the "you" in "why would you want an AI" vending machine is supposed to be "an actual user of a vending machine."
I think you’re overstating your own interpretation of what the author wrote. If we’re going to take your use of the word “exactly” (with emphasis) for real then I’d argue that the author offers no charitable reasons for why the experiment took place.
The closest that I think he even gets to one is:
> At first glance, it is funny and it looks like journalists doing their job criticising the AI industry.
Which arguably assumes that journalists ought to be critical of AI in the same way as him...
Are you sure? The entire post treats the event incredulously. I can’t pick out a single line that affords the issue with the level of consideration that the GP comment does.
The two reasons I believe you may be referring to from above are:
1) "learning how it fails"
2) "to generate some potentially viral content for investor relationship."
The whole of Ploum’s argument may be summarized in his own words as:
> But what appears to be journalism is, in fact, pure advertising. [...] What this video is really doing is normalising the fact that “even if it is completely stupid, AI will be everywhere, get used to it!” [...] So the whole thing is advertising a world where chatbots will be everywhere and where world-class workers will do long queue just to get a free soda. And the best advice about it is that you should probably prepare for that world.
I hate to be pedantic...but my growing disdain for modern blog posts compels me to do so in defense of literacy and clear arguments.
Whether the GP and the author offer the “exact same two reasons” is a matter of interpretation that becomes the duty of readers like us to figure out.
If we take Ploum’s words at their face...the most he does is presuppose (and I hope I’m using that word correctly) that the reader is already keen on the two reasons that `TrainedMonkey makes explicit and like the author, finds them to be stupid. While he does say that the video is not journalism and that it is advertising and that the video does show how the AI failed at the task it was assigned he does not give any credence as to why this is the case from a position other than his own.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding the concept of a “charitable interpretation” too. But I don’t think that there is one present in this post that we’re responding to. `TrainedMonkey’s comment leads off by telling us that this is what (I think) he’s about to offer in the remarks that follow when he says “there are obvious and good reasons for running that experiment”.
So my gripe is that you’re making it sound like there’s a clear counterargument entertained in this post when there isn’t. Because you overstated your interpretation of the GP comment in what looks like an attempt to make Ploum’s argument appear more appealing than it ought to be. Even though both `TrainedMonkey and myself have expressed agreement with the point he’s trying to make in general, perhaps we’re less inclined toward pugnaciousness without a well thought out warrant.
reply