LLM Inevitabilism

The only way I see compensation "adjusting" because of LLMs would need them to become significantly more competent and autonomous.

Not sure what GP meant specifically, but to me, if $200/m gets you a decent programmer, then $200/m is the new going rate for a programmer.

Sure, now it's all fun and games as the market hasn't adjusted yet, but if it really is true that for $200/m you can 10x your revenue, it's still only going to be true until the market adjusts!

> The competent people do get a productivity boost though.

And they are not likely to remain competent if they are all doing 80% review, 15% prompting and 5% coding. If they keep the ratios at, for example, 25% review, 5% prompting and the rest coding, then sure, they'll remain productive.

OTOH, the pipeline for juniors now seems to be irrevocably broken: the only way forward is to improve the LLM coding capabilities to the point that, when the current crop of knowledgeable people have retired, programmers are not required.

Otherwise, when the current crop of coders who have the experience retires, there'll be no experience in the pipeline to take their place.

If the new norm is "$200/m gets you a programmer", then that is exactly the labour rate for programming: $200/m. These were previously (at least) $5k/m jobs. They are now $200/m jobs.

High level languages also massively boosted productivity, but we didn't see salaries collapse from that.

> And they are not likely to remain competent if they are all doing 80% review, 15% prompting and 5% coding.

I've been doing 80% review and design for years, it's called not being a mid or junior level developer.

> OTOH, the pipeline for juniors now seems to be irrevocably broken

I constantly get junior developers handed to me from "strategic partners", they are just disguised as senior developers. I'm telling you brother, the LLMs aren't helping these guys do the job. I've let go 3 of them in July alone.

What do you think a product manager is doing?

It doesn't sound like you are disagreeing with me: that role you described is one of manager, not of programmer.

> High level languages also massively boosted productivity, but we didn't see salaries collapse from that.

Those high level languages still needed actual programmers. If the LLM is able to 10x the output of a single programmer because that programmer is spending all their time managing, you don't really need a programmer anymore, do you?

> I've been doing 80% review and design for years, it's called not being a mid or junior level developer.

Maybe it differs from place to place. I was a senior and a staff engineer, at various places including a FAANG. My observations were that even staff engineer level was still spending around 2 - 3 hours a day writing code. If you're 10x'ing your productivity, you almost certainly aren't spending 2 - 3 hours a day writing code.

> I constantly get junior developers handed to me from "strategic partners", they are just disguised as senior developers. I'm telling you brother, the LLMs aren't helping these guys do the job. I've let go 3 of them in July alone.

This is a bit of a non-sequitor; what does that have to do with breaking the pipeline for actual juniors?

Without juniors, we don't get seniors. Without seniors and above, who will double-check the output of the LLM?[1]

If no one is hiring juniors anymore, then the pipeline is broken. And since the market price of a programmer is going to be set at $200/m, where will you find new entrants for this market?

Hell, even mid-level programmers will exit, because when a 10-programmer team can be replaced by a 1-person manager and a $200/m coding agent, those 9 people aren't quietly going to starve while the industry needs them again. They're going to go off and find something else to do, and their skills will atrophy (just like the 1-person LLM manager skills will atrophy eventually as well).

----------------------------

[1] Recall that my first post in this thread was to say that the LLM coding agents have to get so good that programmers aren't needed anymore because we won't have programmers anymore. If they aren't that good when the current crop starts retiring then we're in for some trouble, aren't we?

You keep saying this, but I don't see it. The current tools just can't replace developers. They can't even be used in the same way you'd use a junior developer or intern. It's more akin to going from hand tools to power tools than it is getting an apprentice. The job has not been automated and hasn't been outsourced to LLMs.

Will it be? Who knows, but in my personal opinion, it's not looking like it will any time soon. There would need to be more improvement than we've seen from day 1 of ChatGPT until now before we could even be seriously considering this.

> Those high level languages still needed actual programmers.

So does the LLM from day one until now, and for the foreseeable future.

> This is a bit of a non-sequitor; what does that have to do with breaking the pipeline for actual juniors?

Who says the pipeline is even broken by LLMs? The job market went to shit with rising interest rates before LLMs hit the scene. Nobody was hiring them anyway.

On the other end, I know a guy who writes deeply proprietary embedded code that lives in EV battery controllers and he's found LLMs useless.

I find this surprising. I figured the opposite: that the quality of body shop type places would improve and the productivity increases would decrease as you went "up" the skill ladder.

I've worked on/inherited a few projects from the Big Name body shops and, frankly, I'd take some "vibe coded" LLM mess any day of the week. I really figured there was nowhere to go but "up" for those kinds of projects.

In that case it seems to depend on what you mean by "replacing", doesn't it? It doesn't mean a non-developer can do a developers job, but it does mean that one developer can do two developer's jobs. That leads to a lot more competition for the remaining jobs and presumably many competent developers will accept lower salaries in exchange for having a job at all.