Even at $100/month you’re comparing to a > $10k/month junior. 1% of the cost for certainly > 1% functionality of a junior.
You can see why companies are tripping over themselves to push this new modality.
Comment on AI slows down some experienced software developers, study finds
errer@lemmy.world 6 days agoYeah but a Claude/Cursor/whatever subscription costs $20/month and a junior engineer costs real money. Are the tools 400 times less useful than a junior engineer? I’m not so sure…
lIlIlIlIlIlIl@lemmy.world 6 days ago
errer@lemmy.world 6 days ago
I was just ballparking the salary. Say it’s only 100x. Does the argument change? It’s a lot more money to pay for a real person.
finalarbiter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 days ago
This line of thought is short sighted. Your senior engineers will eventually retire or leave the company. If everyone replaces junior engineers with ai, then there will be nobody with the experience to fill those empty seats. Then you end up with no junior engineers and no senior engineers, so who is wrangling the ai?
errer@lemmy.world 6 days ago
This isn’t black and white. There will always be some junior hires. No one is saying replace ALL of them. But hiring 1 junior engineer instead of 3? Maybe…and that’s already happening to some degree.
queermunist@lemmy.ml 6 days ago
And when the current senior programmers retire the field of juniors that are coming to replace them will be much smaller.
bitwize01@reddthat.com 6 days ago
Not that I agree, but if you believe that the LLMs will continuously improve, then in 5-10 years you may only need 1/3rd the seniors, to oversee and prompt. Again, that’s what these CEOs are relying on.
Feyd@programming.dev 6 days ago
The point is that comparing AI tools to junior engineers is ridiculous in the first place. It is simply marketing.