←back to thread

OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D

(www.kbkg.com)
336 points tareqak | 4 comments | 05 Jul 25 00:24 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source
Show context
johncole ◴[05 Jul 25 01:59 UTC] No.44469537[source]▶
I think we will see this lead to a boost in software developer employment.
replies(5): >>44469626 #>>44469700 #>>44469839 #>>44469938 #>>44469999 #
mlinhares ◴[05 Jul 25 03:06 UTC] No.44469839[source]▶
I doubt it, the narrative is that software engineering is dead and everything will be replaced by AI, so that salaries can continue to be depressed. Just like the original passing didn't really cause much trouble in the general market this repeal will mostly just produce more shareholder value.
replies(3): >>44469868 #>>44470043 #>>44470207 #
seattle_spring ◴[05 Jul 25 04:18 UTC] No.44470043[source]▶
Anyone who knows anything about software and has used AI for more than 24 hours knows that AI won't be "replacing" software engineering anytime soon.
replies(2): >>44470070 #>>44470456 #
1. akmarinov ◴[05 Jul 25 06:11 UTC] No.44470456[source]▶
Hard disagree, I’ve been agentic coding the past couple of months and have written maybe 100 lines doing this for a living.

The rest is coming up with SDDs and reviewing AI’s code.

I can easily see most devs, doctors and lawyers automated away in the next couple of years.

replies(2): >>44470488 #>>44470764 #
2. throwawaysleep ◴[05 Jul 25 06:20 UTC] No.44470488[source]▶
Very much agree.

I am overemployed with 3 dev jobs at once. AI is writing virtually all my code and letting me nap all day. Eventually that will end once people see the power of them.

3. coffeebeqn ◴[05 Jul 25 07:28 UTC] No.44470764[source]▶
Either we have wildly different difficulty levels at our jobs or this is bs. I tried the agents (I get access to basically all state of the art from my company) and they still have all the same issues of agents from a year back. Each step gets more chaotic and the end result is always that I end up reverting the over complicated mess it made and writing it myself. One-offs with lots of context still sometimes work.

Even a perfect eval loop like failing tests end up 80% of the time with them creating something way too complicated since they solve one visible but not root issue at a time and build on top of that hacky foundation until again I end up reverting it all

replies(1): >>44471300 #
4. akmarinov ◴[05 Jul 25 09:14 UTC] No.44471300[source]▶
Yeah - that’s the hard part now - dialing things down to eliminate the divergent paths the AI can take to implement what you want.

You can tell it “implement feature X” and it’ll go and do whatever’s easiest for it, often something dumb, that’s when people usually think “it’s dumb, won’t replace devs” and give up. Or you can nail down your requirements by talking to it and describing what you’re looking for, often it comes back with things you hadn’t considered or ways of doing things you didn’t know. Then just tell it “implement this SDD” and watch it one shot it in an hour or so.

There’s also pain points - some languages like Swift have changed so often and there’s little open source code to train on out there, so it’s on the worse side if you do iOS development.

It’s a new skill that needs working at, but in the end your output is significantly increased.