[xhcuvuvyc]

Read something similar a while back.

Code isn't assembly, code is required to sufficiently express English in a way that is unambiguous.

You can't translate plain English into unambiguous code. Period. Not even engineers can. The only way this translation happens is that humans are good enough at communicating to get to a point that code can be produced and iterated on to produce an outcome with enough context the thing doesn't fall over after a week.

The only thing stopping AI doing this is the right communication models and enough context.

As an engineer by trade. Im quickly realizing how fucked we are right now.

I give us maybe 2-3 years until the last engineering roles are posted. Maybe longer depending on how many businesses survive the crash while refusing to automate their workflows.

Most of us are going to start transferring skills to more of a prompt programming and coordinator role.

Until those roles go to.

[curt15]

>Most of us are going to start transferring skills to more of a prompt programming and coordinator role.

Human code reviews and in-depth understanding of architecture remain important even for codebases with comprehensive test suites because treating a computer program solely as a black box does not allow one to reason precisely about the program when it encounters general inputs. Relying solely on black box testing simply offloads more QA to production users.

In a future world where humans rely entirely on machines to interpret their ambiguous instructions, who does the checking and what do the checks involve?

[ramon156]

Im still of the opinion that programming should be enjoyed more as a hobby/skill now. Just like a builder cannot build an entire house by himself, programmers now cannot build without an orchestrator.

Nonetheless, you can build a cabiner just for funsies and to feel like you've accomplished something