←back to thread

61 points NotAnOtter | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.211s | source

My company is increasingly pushing prompt engineering as the single way we "should" be coding. The CEO & CTO are both obsessed with it and promote things like "delete entire unit test file & have claude generate a new one" rather than manually address test failures.

I'm a 'senior engineer' with ~5 years of industry experience and am considering moving on from this company because I don't want

1. Be pushed into a workflow that will cause my technical growth to stall or degrade 2. Be overseeing a bunch of AI-generated spaghetti 2-3 years from now

Feel free to address my specific situation but I'm interested in more general opinions.

Show context
sircastor ◴[] No.44468806[source]
I'm a senior engineer with 20+ (oof) years of industry experience. I appreciate that this sucks and you don't want to do it. I wouldn't either. That said, it's a hirer's market out there right now. There will be plenty of people who will be happy to take your position while you're looking for something you prefer.

My opinion is that we're going to have about 5 years of this. Managers and C-suite folks are going to do their absolute darnedest to replace and supplement people with AI tools before they figure out it's not going to work. While I appreciate the differences, I remember seeing this ~6-7 years ago with blockchain at my last role. It'll work itself out. In the mean time, you get to contribute to the situation, instead of simply not being present. It's not going to be fun of course.

I don't think we're ever going back from this. There's an entire generation of new coders, and new managers who are growing up with this stuff. It's part of their experience, and suggesting they not use it is going to be akin to asking if you can use a typewriter instead of a computer with a word processor. Some companies will take longer to adopt, but it's coming...

replies(1): >>44469214 #
noduerme ◴[] No.44469214[source]
I feel I'm sort of stuck in the opposite situation of OP. I manage a few massive codebases that I simply cannot trust an AI to go mucking around with. The only type of serious AI coding experience I could get at this point would be to branch one of these and start experimenting on my own dime to see how good or bad the actual experience is. And that doesn't really seem worth it, because I know what I want to do with them (what's on the feature list that I'm being paid to develop)... and it feels like it would take more time to talk to an LLM and get it perfectly dialed in on any given feature, and ensure it was correct, than it would take to write it myself. And I'm not getting paid for it.

I feel like I'd never use Claude seriously unless someone demanded I used it from day one on a greenfield project. And so while I get to keep evolving my coding skills, I'm a little worried that my "AI skills" will lag behind.

replies(2): >>44469569 #>>44470423 #
1. sircastor ◴[] No.44469569[source]
I do a lot of non-work AI stuff on my own, from pair programming with AI, asking it to generate whole things, to just asking it to clarify a general approach to a problem.

FWIW, in a work environment (and I have not been given the go-ahead to start this at my work) I would start by supplementing my codebase. Add a new feature via AI coding, or maybe reworking some existing function. Start small.