> PS: You have intrinsic value, and your skills will also remain valuable, if even for how it teaches you to approach complex problems and think deeply.
I appreciated this, but I feel the crux of the issue is this is only true with painful caveats. If you're a "computer carpenter" (massive nerd), that massive nerdiness was almost like a scarce asset in the professional world that appeared only after a life involving thousands of solitary hours from a young age in front of a computer screen.
That asset has been somewhat synthesized now. The asset of being able to quickly understand and produce a solution appropriate for a large technical system is now _significantly_ less scarce for businesses.
Sure, we still have our intrinsic value, but that's going to get increasingly less fun to convert into the sort of value necessary to pay bills.
I think the nerdiness is still a huge asset, because what I've seen is that technical people are the ones whos ceiling is raised the most by AI.
Sure, anyone can make a flashy demo now, and so the signaling value of being able to create something like that is gone, not to mention flashy demos themselves have lost 90% of the wow factor overnight and will continue to plummet. But in a way these superficial perception shifts that don't actually impact the fundamental value of technical expertise as much as it seems.
Yes, it does affect your ability to pull a high paycheck purely from nuts and bolts code slinging—I would argue that was an especially privileged moat over the last 20 years powered by the rise of FAANG. Programmers before that era did not make anywhere near the salaries of the 2010s, and other more serious engineering disciplines never have and never will make that kind of money. So sure, pour one out for the salad days, but also it helps to have some perspective.
But why I think software engineers will be fine is this: most people simply do not have the patience, discipline, or frankly interest in thinking deeply about how anything should work. If you think AI is devaluing programmers, you should take a look at what it's doing to bad product managers and other "decision makers" who used to be able to hide behind the cost of building, and now are being exposed for not being able to rationalize different business needs and feature ideas into a cohesive product. The amount of software is only increasing, and being able to intuitively understand what computers and systems (including human processes!) can actually do, and distinguish from the magical thinking will only increase in value. The job will change for sure, but when the dust settles I believe the outcome is many more software engineers will have replaced their product managers than vice versa.
> I would argue that was an especially privileged moat over the last 20 years powered by the rise of FAANG.
I agree. I was going to touch on this, but I was trying to practice smaller walls of text - I do think AI has merged/interacted/double-teamed with a correction in tech salaries. We all worked through a very lucky decade or 2! This just adds I think to the current "Fuck it" attitude around the tech world and AI right now.
> If you think AI is devaluing programmers, you should take a look at what it's doing to bad product managers and other "decision makers" who used to be able to hide behind the cost of building, and now are being exposed for not being able to rationalize different business needs and feature ideas into a cohesive product.
Have you got some specific examples of this you're thinking of? I might find that reassure. I stopped working in and around tech in 2023, and most discussion I read is more from tech rather than product. I guess without good examples/evidence, I worry this is just applying the "I see vibe coded software, so therefore AI doesn't actually help software engineering at all" fallacy to product managers and decision makers - I assumed roles whose success depends on programming who don't program themselves would see productivity gains by not having to deal with programmers.
I think we're generally in agreement: core/real/passionate software engineers and nerds will always have a job and role. It may pay less, but at least the drop in income will put off all the people who retrained via bootcamps chasing FAANG salaries. Not sure I agree entirely on product suffering less though: in some environments, software engineering teams are the tools product managers use to build the businesses requirements, agents are just a new tool for product which will replace the bootcamp engineers. I don't think the c-suite and customers are going to all of a sudden want to talk to the massive nerds locked away in cellar, and I'm not sure all of the massive nerds are ready to have to deal directly with customers or c-suite. (LLMs will be though.)
https://youtu.be/hNuu9CpdjIo
The idea has been to get the nerds out of computing since 1971.
Milt Bryce and his son Tim were pretty much the inventors of modern information-systems management[0]. And they were open in their hatred of and contempt for programmers and how they worked. Their methodology, PRIDE, was centered around giving the programmers as little to do and as little autonomy and leverage over the organization as possible, because information systems is a business function and not a technical one. The key decisions would be made by systems analysts and designers, not programmers. Without AI, the part that programmers contributed in a PRIDE project was about 15%; with AI, it asymptotically approaches zero. I've been studying PRIDE a lot over the past few years, because with Tim Bryce's death it's at risk of being forgotten; and because now with AI in the mix, it helps me understand what's actually going on from a business perspective.
This is what management has wanted all along. Programmers are expensive, tetchy, and they resist standardization and discipline, preferring instead to employ their own little bespoke methods and tool choices. (Hello, vim vs. emacs!) Failure to keep them in tight rein can spell doom for the company, as they can use their technical skills to their advantage, potentially holding the whole business hostage. You may bristle and think the above is not true, but your boss or skip-level manager probably thinks it's true, and the C suite absolutely does (especially in traditional businesses: banking, insurance, manufacturing, etc.). Nerds were seen as a necessary liability to automating a business's information systems; now, they are no longer necessary.
The only way out for us is to follow Rogue's mom's advice: "Have you tried not being a nerd?" Learn business, learn what customers actually want and what business operations need in order to fulfill those wants. Think like a systems analyst—big picture, focused on information flows between companies, departments, people, not like a programmer (detailist obsessed with the machine in PRIDE ideology).
[0] Maybe Margaret Hamilton predated them, but not by much.
>The only way out for us is to follow Rogue's mom's advice: "Have you tried not being a nerd?"
Tried and failed for decades, yes. Turns out caring for your craft makes you a nerd. Turn out what people want is to stay in their lane and simply want "the fries in the bag", with no curiosity on what's in the fries or bag as long as it tastes good.
I refuse to stop caring in this otherwise uncaring world. Now what?
>You may bristle and think the above is not true, but your boss or skip-level manager probably thinks it's true, and the C suite absolutely does
It is true. What this ultiamtely breaks down to is simple: Nerds are thinkers, and thinkers question. The context here is in tech and automation, but that's a trend that extends to a lot of systems and societies. Those in power hate the thinkers, they hate the questions. They will suppress it for as long as possible.
Use this lens in other kinds of communities and you see the pattern pops up everytime. To "stop being a nerd" in this context is akin to saying "stop questioning the system and exploit it like the rest of us".
Yet as a programmer myself, I've been in situations where I'm artificially separated from the customer against my will.
I want to build something useful for them but if they let me be too close to the customer, I'll be making important decisions that are supposed to be someone else's job.
> You may bristle and think the above is not true...
Hehe, my undergrad was comp sci, I turned down an Oxbridge postgraduate in Advanced Computing Science to do an interdisiplinary PhD, technically in the social sciences department, because I genuinely do understand and agree with you on a few levels. At the end of the day, people are the ones who need to be kept happy. The flip side of 1000's of isolated hours of screentime is a lack of practice at making people feel comfortable in real life. But, the same is true for basically any craftsman of any craft, just swap screen with lathe or instrument or other tool of choice.
I think there's a biological element to being a nerd, so "Have you tried not being a nerd?" is like asking someone with ginger hair "have you tried not being ginger?" Sure, they can try/dye, but the roots will keep growing through, fighting against something that's a massive asset in the right environment.
Regarding PRIDE, it sounds like that came from a time where people were genuinely scared/amazed/confused by computers. When you consider that, minimising the role of people who are going to make it all about tech and computers makes sense. Maybe the tide is changing over the past 2 - 5 years against tech, but the entire 2000s up until recently were defined IMO by the pervasiveness and excitement and accessibility of tech by literally everyone on the planet. In that world, where customers pay good money for magic tech they don't understand, a company of nerds brings safety and reassurance (and high salaries and decision impact for said nerds).
I worry nerds and the products of nerds at the top like Zuckerberg, Altman and Musk are causing the public attitude to shift back to what they were like pre-2000s, where tech is dangerous and powerful and scary and normal humans need to be kept away from it, and advocates of tech should be viewed sceptically.
> Nerds were seen as a necessary liability to automating a business's information systems; now, they are no longer necessary.
This is essentially my central point/worry. I hope there's more nuance to it though, mainly because 1 younger relative in particular is in his early teens, and he's clearly a naive/friendly/enthusiastic/hyper-fixating/lots of nerdy screentime type. Until a few years ago, I assumed he'd have the life a lot of us have had. Now though, I wonder what life will be afforded to nerdy, weird people born into a world where they're seen as significantly less necessary.
> The asset of being able to quickly understand and produce a solution appropriate for a large technical system is now _significantly_ less scarce for businesses.
Certainly, it's easier to produce solutions now, but I wouldn't underestimate the knowledge you have, and say that others who are capable of using AI to produce the same output have the same understanding that you do.
Personally, I find that I am able to produce excellent outcomes with AI with respect to the topics that I have the most expertise in, and passingly acceptable outcomes in things that I know very little about.