[nz]

In some sense, programming is about figuring out which algorithms are a fitting metaphor for business problems. By programming, you are building a model of the business problem and a model of its solution. Most of the non-programmers who are in positions of authority (managers, CEOs, even some CTOs), do not understand that this is what programmers do. From their point of view, the authorities come up with a "strategy", after dozens of meetings, and give the programmers vague instructions based on the strategy, and programmers turn those instructions into code that does something somewhere, usually after finding ways to avoid bad or unfeasible ideas, while still complying with the instructions.

To them, an LLM is indistinguishable from a programmer. From the point of view of authority, progress happens one meeting at a time. The reality is that there is a pyramid of experts beneath the authorities, that keep everything running smoothly, in spite of the best attempts of the authorities to demolish the foundation of the pyramid by "helping".

EDIT: to end on a positive note, it does not have to be this way. We just have to be willing to understand _how_ the organization we are a part of actually functions. And that means actually being curious instead of merely authoritative. I understand that curiosity is hard to maintain when you swim with sharks, so maybe don't swim with sharks.

[vladms]

> and programmers turn those instructions into code that does something somewhere, usually after finding ways to avoid bad or unfeasible ideas, while still complying with the instructions.

Some do, but not all did that. With work-from-home I was staying at a friend of a friend that was a programmer and had a meeting. I was amazed about the level of simple things he was discussing, like "please add an error check, now you made a form where you can insert wrong data; make sure form is visible on a small screen, now it is not; etc.". And they talked ~2 hours about each, with the other person showing the guy exactly what it was not working. I do not know the history (maybe he was reconverting or something), but if this was what was he was doing usually, it was very inefficient and quite simple.

Most of my work was more similar to what you describe (fighting vague instructions and push back unfeasible ideas), but I wonder how much of "the industry" does this.

On the management I worked with all kinds, the employees have a small part of responsibility to look and select good organizations, otherwise power-hungry idiots arrive on top and start dictate and nothing crumbles because everybody just stays.

[elzbardico]

Funny thing is that from all places, banking and finance are some of the ones that more closely understand software not only as a tool for doing business, but as something that informs and define the business itself.

I once worked in a big bank where basically 70% of their C-suite and upper management were engineers (not only SE, but civil, electric, naval, etc) who had years of experience in IT. The rest were lawyers and a couple economists.

And I am not even talking about the worlds of quant and hft.