←back to thread

The barriers to AI engineering are crumbling fast

(blog.helix.ml)
251 points lewq | 3 comments | 14 Nov 24 14:56 UTC | HN request time: 0.524s | source
Show context
JSDevOps ◴[14 Nov 24 15:05 UTC] No.42136819[source]▶
Is anyone instantly suspicious when they introduce themselves these days an "AI Developer"
replies(8): >>42136909 #>>42136984 #>>42137147 #>>42137171 #>>42137380 #>>42137938 #>>42137950 #>>42140294 #
pjmlp ◴[14 Nov 24 15:32 UTC] No.42137171[source]▶
Yes, just like "Data Engineer" for knowing how to use Tableau or doing OLAP queries.
replies(5): >>42137828 #>>42137904 #>>42137975 #>>42139088 #>>42139089 #
Ldragon27 ◴[14 Nov 24 16:35 UTC] No.42137904[source]▶
Are you saying that true Data Engineers typically do more than just use Tableau or run OLAP queries, or do you see the title 'Data Engineer' itself as a bit of a red flag these days? I’m pretty early in my career and was leaning toward Data Engineering, but hearing stuff like this makes me wonder if going for SWE might be smarter.
replies(2): >>42137954 #>>42138306 #
pjmlp ◴[14 Nov 24 17:07 UTC] No.42138306[source]▶
For starters, Engineer only makes sense if the person actually holds an engineering degree, taken at an institution validated by the Engineering Order.
replies(1): >>42138435 #
JohnFen ◴[14 Nov 24 17:15 UTC] No.42138435[source]▶
That's a legalism that isn't universal. Personally, I think that anyone who engages in engineering is logically an engineer. Maybe not a certified engineer, but an engineer nonetheless.
replies(3): >>42138648 #>>42138910 #>>42141029 #
pjmlp ◴[14 Nov 24 17:29 UTC] No.42138648[source]▶
So is anyone that cooks a Chef.
replies(2): >>42138726 #>>42138761 #
JohnFen ◴[14 Nov 24 17:38 UTC] No.42138761[source]▶
"Chef" is a specific job title. Anyone who has that job, regardless of qualifications, is a "chef", yes.
replies(1): >>42141254 #
1. pjmlp ◴[14 Nov 24 21:09 UTC] No.42141254[source]▶
Yeah but can they deliver, and handle a kitchen, like one that actually has a diploma in Culinary arts?
replies(2): >>42142908 #>>42147516 #
2. portaouflop ◴[15 Nov 24 00:43 UTC] No.42142908[source]▶
Sometimes they can, sometimes not. What is your point here?
3. JohnFen ◴[15 Nov 24 15:02 UTC] No.42147516[source]▶
Some can, some can't. A degree is no guarantee that the person is able to perform at a high level, and the lack of a degree is no guarantee that they can't.

But none of that is relevant to my point, which is largely linguistic. If a person is doing a thing, then they are "a person who is doing the thing."

If a person is engineering, then they're an engineer by definition. That's not saying they're a good or bad engineer, just that's what they're doing.

There is a role for certifications, of course! But those certifications are intended to mark a lower boundary of ability, nothing more. Rather than overloading "engineer" to indicate that a person has a certification, I'd advocate calling them something like a "certified engineer". That would be correct and accurate, and wouldn't exclude a whole lot of great defacto engineers.