FR version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
52% Positive
Analyzed from 3266 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#junior#code#value#coding#engineers#more#don#engineer#problem#intern
Discussion (79 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
As it is now, they aren’t being taught and they’re not learning from what the AI is producing because they don’t understand it. The produced code is a black box, and the AI’s development is a black box too. All they know is that running it produces something like what they asked for. They have no idea about failure modes which is a fundamental concept of engineering. The worst part is that AI is covering up their deficiencies. They don’t know what skills they lack. They don’t even know what skills are required because they haven’t put the effort in.
There are obviously good junior engineers that are using AI judiciously and not as a crutch. They’re the ones who still interact with seniors to get help and actually learn. They would have been successful without AI too. These are the ones the author is talking about. In my experience, the momentum is moving towards the worse type of junior the more AI is adopted. Unless that changes, it will erase their value.
You still have standups, right?
I'd be questioning why at the very least the team lead/manager isn't questioning the lack of progress during those meetings and immediately requesting a more senior engineer help out.
Even before AI this was how it worked. Unless the junior engineer is being purposely secretive about lack of progress, which would have happened back then too, then this isn't an AI problem, it's a team culture one.
This is the biggest issue with AI. It is incredible when in the right hands (Senior devs who know good fundamentals and know how to code) but really bad when in wrong hands (Juniors with no fundamentals but they are made to believe that they know what they are doing).
You’re describing a gap between those who would otherwise fail in their jobs sooner, and those who already know what to do. Sounds like there is a new paradigm for management, too.
As it is now, they aren't being taught, and they're not learning from what the compiler is producing because they don't understand it. The emitted object code is a black box, and the compiler itself is a black box too. All they know is that running it produces something like what they asked for. They have no idea about register allocation or instruction timing, which is a fundamental concept of programming. The worst part is that automatic programming is covering up their deficiencies. They don't know what skills they lack. They don't even know octal exists, because they haven't put the effort in.
There are obviously good junior programmers who use FORTRAN judiciously and still read their core dumps. They're the ones who still interact with the senior operators and actually learn the machine. They would have been successful with a plugboard too. In my experience, the momentum is moving toward the worse type of junior the more automatic programming is adopted. Unless that changes, it will erase their value.
And almost every time in history this conflict has arisen, the stubborn people who want to stick to the "everybody should stay at the level of abstraction that I want to stay at!" have been proven wrong.
So if you don't see the comparison, you lack imagination. It's the same comparison Torvald Linus made, and even though all the rabid anti-AI people try to deny that it's a valid comparison by willfully misunderstanding the comparison, it's perfectly valid.
And I find both the article and the comment I responded to either ignorant of history, and worse than uninsightful, because they are just patently, historically, logically, and empirically wrong.
And I'm getting tired of the arrogant senior devs, that are not a fraction as useful as they think they are, whining and complaining at younger people who are creating imperfect but useful work with AI.
While the tools for AI coding are just exploding. How can you people say stuff like "They learn nothing" with a straight face is beyond me. I see people daily who use AI to solve problems and learn something in the process.
I am having such a blast over the last couple of years seeing how AI development just relentlessly disproves the claims from bitter old developers who don't want to be forced to do anything useful. And when the transition is complete, the gatekeepers will be gone, and we will be left with people trying to solve real problems.
Yeah this part should not exist anymore. It doesn’t where I work.
When I get a PR I just ask an agent to make the proposed changes. There is absolutely zero incentive for me to give feedback for you to give to an agent when I can give it to an agent myself.
Coding isn’t the job anymore. It’s understanding systems and architecture design, and ownership of what you work on. Being able to design solutions, understand them, deliver them and support them in production is the job now. Engineering is still engineering. End to end ownership is the job.
When I ask an agent to do a code change for a PR, it’s because it’s not something I think the other engineer really should waste their time on. It’s on the same level as nitpicking what lines the braces go on before we had auto-formatters and lint checkers in CI.
Other staff engineers I rarely even see their code. I trust them to be able to review and deliver and support their own code and communicate breaking changes. Knowledge gets disseminated at weekly architecture reviews, in person.
Offshore developers under me have their code gone over with a fine-toothed comb. They don’t own the work. They don’t support it. They can’t even speak to me without using copy pasted Claude responses that are wrong half the time anyway. I have zero qualms with “going over them”.
AI just made it obvious.
This is especially impacting Indian tech workers in the US [0] since these are often the types of roles that InfoSys and other foreign tech consulting firms are staffing. The new $100,000 fee to sponsor an H1B visa has made it difficult to justify hiring foreign tech workers when most of the time they are just going to be using American LLMs to do their work anyway.
[0] https://thefederal.com/category/news/h1b-visa-indian-tech-wo...
Now I can fire off agents ona remote box to do the grunt work and open PRs, then just prompt to review/iterate it. No timezone timezone delays or language barriers. Nearly instant feedback.
Coding is solved. Engineering is not. Catch up or be left behind.
I'm pretty certain SOTA is better than you at engineering. It's gonna be a real shock to your system when you finally acknowledge to yourself that you are nothing more than an expensive proxy to an LLM.
> Coding is solved. Engineering is not. Catch up or be left behind.
I'm really grateful for my company's culture. Reading replies like this, I remember how easy it is to forget how atrocious that can be elsewhere. Thanks for the perspective and reminder.
We prefer to hire on-shore junior engineers now, but their job isn’t just to just bang out grunt work Jira tickets. They own their work end to end and support it at every level. They get mentorship from seniors to move beyond coding and into systems and architecture level thinking. That’s the job now.
lol
I developed a system to help prepare for leet coding interviews so I never feel lost under pressure solving a problem again. It is like a debugger that steps through the code showing all the values of all the variables with data visualizations that reflect the logic so I can grok what it is doing. [0]
After I had the Claude build it, I started looking at the values and there were some mistakes. So, again, the coding agent ran all the code, recorded all the values, and made sure that they line up.
Here is the really cool thing about that. The coding agents can't be trusted. By observing the values stepping though, what I really was doing was debugging coding agent code. It is debugging code presented in a way that is extremely simplified.
What I've been thinking about yesterday and today is, can I do the same thing with a pull request? Have the coding agent run the code, capture all the values, and create a console for the reviewer to step through looking at with data visualizations that abstractly represent that code.
Two things. 1. Coding agents can't be trusted and 2. reviewing code is very difficult. But is it possible to use coding agents to make reviewing code easy for humans? I think so.
That would be a great way for junior engineers to be extremely useful. They only have to step through the code and make sure that all the values line up.
[0] https://adamsohn.com/algoviz/
Yesterday claude code built a console that steps through algorithms: one shot. There was a bug with a value being incorrect. I thought this would be a great way to automated visualizing and stepping through code during a PR review.
I'm sitting in a room with a computer by myself where I was thinking yesterday about a way that AI can add value to junior engineers. I see a post and discussion about junior engineer's value so I shared what I'm think and working on.
Hopefully I'm contributing to the conversation here and I can get feedback good or bad about how to approach improving junior engineer's value.
If anything will be missing from juniors it will be the ability to run code in their heads if they've only written code via AI.
This doesn't make sense - AI is to allow unskilled people to produce what was previously only produced by skilled people.
IOW, how does having 2 years of experience using an LLM to generate code beat having 2 months of experience?
The whole point of using the LLM is that very little skill is involved; how does starting earlier with it provide an advantage? If it's as good as it is claimed to be, starting later with it won't make a single iota of difference to the generated results, compared to someone who started earlier.
Yeah, but it's a trivial skill that the people who learned it took maybe a week to learn it.
Unless LLMs never improve, the odds are good that even less time would be needed to get up to speed in a 2030 SOTA.
I mean, the whole reason for LLM usage is to produce something with little to no skill needed. That's literally what they are designing it for.
So it's unlikely that having a headstart using LLMs leads to any advantage.
So, interns can still produce some value. How much value?
> In our product, there was a feature which had been requested for years, but had not been built yet. It wasn’t overly complex, but it was not critical.
Said another way: The feature was of so little value that it was not even worth assigning to a non-AI-assisted intern! This is what most of us mean when we say “AI lowers the value of…”
You're right that pre-AI that feature would not have been given to an intern (because they wouldn't be able to own it). So pre-AI, customers had a problem, we paid the intern, but could not solve the problem. Post-AI, the same problem exist, we pay the same intern. The customer problem is solved.
The article shows that the market value of the intern is lower: Work was not prioritized and given to a higher-cost junior engineer.
> … pre-AI that feature would not have been given to an intern (because they wouldn't be able to own it)…
Meaning, a more-skilled, higher-cost employee would have to do some or all of the work.
Edit: Another meaning of “worth” is a “intrinsic value”. Humans have worth in this sense.
I trust junior + claude significantly less than I trusted pre-AI juniors. I do not think it will age well to put so much pressure on juniors to make contributions early and with mostly automated mentorship before they really understand what they are doing and why.
They use it like a crutch and are unable to think critically or do tasks manually.
I wouldn't want to hire anyone to my team with that deficiency.
This article is wrong.
There is still room for juniors… in fall of 2026. Will there be in fall of 2030? If your thesis rests on LLMs and AI systems not dramatically improving over where they are today, is it worth anything?
Now, you could argue that those were days when people moved jobs a lot less, so a junior was an investment for the company, even if they weren't worth their salary yet. And that's true to at least some degree. Still, that means that what changed isn't the value of juniors, but companies' willingness to invest in the future.
This same work that ai agents already do better. Now only the top juniors are really still worth it, the ones with more nebulous ownership, communication, synthesis, drive skills. And even these I think are on their way to being consumed by ai, unless the curve flattens (totally possible too). I think my only point is that the world is moving so fast that so many “optimistic about the field” posts I see basically assume we’ve reached the end of ai agent and system capabilities. If we have then great. But I find it a really unlikely bet.
That deserved a real answer, so I wrote this post. Short version: that describes a problem with how the role is structured, not what juniors can do. Push back welcome.
if it's product led - and every engineer no matter the level are supposed to understand the business and the requirements that drive value i.e create their own tickets etc - then yeah the value of the junior engineer stays the same or goes up.
with other orgs - where product managers act like high priests and everything has to go through Jira. then the value of not just junior engineers but engineers in general has been always at an all time low.