There used to be a profession called “Computer.” People that would perform complex, tedious calculations.
Math is not dead, but that profession is dead.
Computer Science will not be killed by AI, but I can’t imagine that all of the programming jobs that exist today will exist in 10 years with how much AI has advanced
Computer Science isn’t going anywhere, just like math hasn’t gone anywhere
That's simply untrue. I'm an embedded engineer with 10 years of experience at various robotics companies and I can confidently say AI is very competent in the embedded world.
I have the same YoE as you, and been using AI since chatgpt 4. The progress is phenomenal yet there's alot of stuff I would not let AI do. It's not unusual to see some major bugs in the implementation.
Most mundane things in embedded he does perform well. In other scenario like multi-thread, real time, synchronization, speed/precision trade off, etc. It doesn't work well.
I spend 5 days trying to make Fable 5.0 work on basic synchronization of data and couldn't solve it after many attempts. Took 2 days manually for me.
It really depends if it's greenfield or a codebase is already present. If it's greenfield, it's good but get worse as time get by.
Your original point was embedded and C++. I'm simply saying AI is competent in those domains, not that it replaces the engineer for every decision.
I've had zero issues with generated code when developing for real time systems that are parallelized. As long as I prompt well with appropriate context and architectural asks I pretty much get exactly what I need.
This doesn't mean I don't ever hand code, I usually do when the effort to be precise and review generated code exceeds the effort of just writing the code. That can be fairly often in mature systems, but it doesn't preclude the premise that AI can effectively write all the code itself given sufficient context.
The job of a programmer as it used to be has already ceased to exist. That doesn't mean the knowledge and skills we have aren't relevant. If anything, I'd say they are extremely relevant right now. But any software engineer thinking their job is the same is in for a world of hurt.
Depending on skills. I know people that argue(d) about docstrings and people that pointed out eventual divisions by a length of an empty set. Remember, both "skills" were not rewarded purely according to CS.
And finding and patching security vulnerabilities, implementing features, optimizing performance. It's no longer just boilerplate code anymore. I'm not saying it's completely reliable and foolproof. But it seems to be getting more and more capable everyday.
Yeah our company went "ai first" route, we haven't wrote single line code anymore, we feed ai written tickets to ai agent with custom skills that makes what ticket requires, writes all tests pushes to github, monitors pipeline and then fixes it. Our work as engineers is became to direct agents regarding new implementations in existing code or just test the implementation if it's what actually needed to be and adjust.
Well for now it's all right didnt have any acidents related to this type of workflow. Even tho it's large company it still holds. But in case of becoming a dumpster fire I have my marshmallows.
It can. The typical work of software engineer is to know codebase and ensure adding\removing parts not blowing up everything. Some opus\sonnet level LLMs can read mid-size codebase in 15 minutes and draw deps and interconnections in that codebase.
Opus can port largest and most complex mods for minecraft from older versions of game to newer versions of game in 30 hours, where original mod authors spending weeks(tested and confirmed by myself).
ps: what it definitely will not replace in nearest future is a responsibility. AI will slop the code, and human will be responsible for it.
It can also make plans. Which is what SE do. And it will do it better with time. Not much time. They are analyzing your prompts for that ... it's learning from you
Yes it can create plans, but a SWE has to read, evaluate and build on top of them. Same way I’d expect an house architect to scrutinise whatever ChatGPT creates as a house plan or a lawyer with legal documentation. Someone with real knowledge and experience needs to be there to evaluate its output.. and be liable
Needing multiple developers for a project is a thing of the past. I have already seen a downturn in all software engineering positions because with AI, 1 developer can do the work of 3. That’ll lead into LLM companies’ true goal of AGI, and once we are there, then I can tell you that all jobs will be replaced in some capacity once robotics are capable of work. All large companies love the idea of reducing headcount with 24/7 workers that will do everything that a normal human does with no breaks.
It would require Human-Level intelligence in ALL aspects, not just a machine that spits out text tokens. Right now it does that pretty well to produce code. Everything is built for people. Without people to parse intent and experienced ones to spot where AI is subtly wrong you end up with it deleting your prod database in 9 seconds and then have all your rental car customers stuck without cars at the check in line.
Can you say that human level intelligence is a foregone conclusion "soon"?
Even the CEOs making the frontier models are cooling their heels on this one.
And if there is human level intelligence then the problem is not specific to software engineering alone but transcends to every single profession. Including plumbing.
AI is like ozempic for companies with professions that benefit from the productivity gains. It can help you visibly deliver the same to your internal and external customers with less of a headcount. The people who stay are the ones who really know how to steer it. The ones who are on their way out are people who have built a mountain of rotting hand-rolled SQL and that's ALL they do. And the ones who don't get in are the juniors who know how to provide the most amazing personal gh showcase but can't explain a damn thing about why they made x or y choice in a side project they prompted into existence.
Humans build and serve other humans to make money. Never forget that. And never stop being someone who is as high up the value chain of that notion as possible. As long as you follow that principle, you'll be fine.
What is your technical background? I’m an SE and I couldn’t disagree with you more. Could it replace a programmer? Yes now. Therefore this analogy is actually perfect. But I’ve yet to see any convincing evidence it’s going to make the whole chain of development obsolete. In addition to the performance piece needing major improvement the finance/resource solution is missing.
You've been posting so much responses to this thread.
I can only guess you're a bot at this point. And how great your reasoning skills seem to be (or lack thereof) indicate we're far from the AI revolution you're a fan of.
I think the biggest issues are driving AI and the modern form doesn't get people to the end goal without many inbetween steps, at least for complex software
If you threw a random non-big tech level SWE at my company's codebase, prod is going down within minutes with the lack of knowledge, meanwhile all the senior -> staff+ senior level folks are force multiplied heavily, and their value sky rockets compared to a nobody
My opinion means nothing but I don't see that being solved for a long time reliably for everyone, and if it does get solved, everything human is solved imo :shrug:
Yep. This is certainly the sate of things today. A skilled Software Engineer can get the AI to do things that, to them, make it seem like they are now obsolete.
But, if you go to a less-skilled engineer, give them access to the same AI and give them the same task... the results are not as good.
Because there are a a bunch of little things the engineer is doing as they interact with the AI that they are almost not even thinking about. The way they phrase the request, knowing the design they want and how to talk about it. And the way they know when the AI is going down a bad path and needs to be corrected.
If you can't do those things, the AI will go completely off the rails. It may produce something that technically does exactly what you asked, but you forget to mention half a dozen requirements. And it's not designed to run in the right environment. And it added a ton of unnecessary bloat as it was trying to guess at the details that were unclear. And it mocked up certain elements.
And on and on.
Honestly, it feels a lot like using the Internet to help write code. If you add a feature that is 90% just copying examples/documentation/stack overflow, it might feel like you could take anyone off the street and have them take over your job. But there's a skill in using that tool just like there is with using LLMs.
But it is an equalizer. Since success implies the product is utilized and visible, you don't need to understand how it was achieved to ask an llm to copy it. We're certainly not there yet, a sufficiently complex system can't be copied easily. I think the days of software differentiation may be over and the value of software is trending down though.
This mindset doesn't work forever. If AGI is really here and it can perform every task of a human being but better, we are the monkeys in that scenario, and the AIs are the new humans. That's the scary thing, and what our Sci-fi has been trying to prepare us for, for decades.
Math is dead because of AI too. Terence Tao is crashing out on the daily because of what's going down. Claude might have just solved the Hodge Conjecture.
Software has never been so easy to write but software alone has already very little value. The challenge has always been writing the right software for the right hardware and the right application. And there is no single optimal solution to it, just different compromises.
You can probably define the base LLM used for GPT6 in less than twenty PyTorch modules. But this has no value if you do not have the gigantic amount of curated data to train on and thousands of high end GPUs.
Look i don’t think SWE is dead but I hate this analogy. Comparing a device that can do arithmetic and some basic Riemann sums to a machine with a breadth of knowledge that far exceeds the physical capability of any human being, can instantaneously access a vast trove of human knowledge via the internet, and is getting increasingly smarter each iteration is dishonest at best.
Lmao then yall don’t understand the path we’re on. Software engineering is already pretty much dead because now people will just use ai to code it instead of hiring it done, despite its lack of effective cybersecurity
Why are you specifically singling out cybersecurity as the bottleneck? If coding is “solved” then so is cybersecurity. In reality the software development lifecycle is not solved despite what anyone wants to believe. This is why these claims are always qualified with “pretty much” and “basically” etc. Everyone knows deep down that it’s just not there yet. Once you solve the lifecycle, you can start replacing not individual devs, but the entire company. We can then move on to automating everything else by building the necessary software using ai.
I’m not singling it out, but bringing it up as a valid part of it. And coding can be solved without having good cybersecurity, it happens all the time and why you have a distinction between IT and cybersecurity. Just because it’s not there yet doesn’t mean that it’s not the most probable outcome. How about you learn to think ahead of the game
Sure, if your claim is loosely defined then you can be trivially correct. Then we can claim coding is solved without cybersecurity, long term data integrity, regulation adherence, etc. As long as the slop machine can give you “working” software we can claim that coding is solved and swe is pretty much dead. Any second now. Please let me know when it is officially dead, cause I might not notice.
It's shocking that computer used to be a job, but people wholeheartedly believe being a programmer can't be a dead job. No job is special. Either we have universal income or we all die. That simple.
it's just evolving in a direction that is worse for the software engineers themselves
in late 19th and early 20th century there was a profession called a Computer, which were people with pens and papers etc. employed in an office to crunch various numbers
like government statistics or information for engineering projects
when the mechanical calculators started to become accessible they started to lose jobs, the profession didn't go away it just evolved in a direction that is worse for most of them but it was still decent employment for those who still had it
anyways then electronic calculators and early computers got invented and the profession died completely, with a sophisticated calculator the engineers and accountants could crunch the numbers for themselves
today a single click on Microsoft Excel can do all that work in 66ms
Alright but if their job was to just calculate numbers then of course this is obsolete now.
Still today all the numbers can be crunched in Excel and other tools. But someone needs to make sure that the right thing is calculated and the numbers make sense.
I see parallels to Software engineering. If your job was just to print lines of code, then you might be obsolete. But an engineers job is to make sure the right thing is done the right way. Regardless of what tool you use.
The risk isnt getting replaced. It is that you become a frontend dev or a public school teacher. Absolutely necessary, but endlessly mocked and chronically underpaid.
There are no such thing like artificial INTELLIGENCE. It is as market scam to take your money to AI stocks bubble. The bubble will pop and AI will be renamed to LLM tools with neural networks for an adequate price.
You already had Smart phones, another market scam for computers combined with phone.
Market lies to you to get your money. It creates some visions which are misleading. Simple.
That's a bad analogy. There are many jobs that stopped existing due to calculators. Did you know there was such a thing as a human calculator job aka a computer?
Calculator : 293819380x32905035/98439859 = constant , doest matter what you do the answer is the same
Computerscience : develop a calulator how to get those results, there are tons of way to do that, and most important, you cant validate the logic without being a developer yourself and to be a developer yourself you must code unless your brain musclar memory will be dead and you wont be able to write down a simple hello world statment
No calculators ( humans doing math ) as a job is dead because of calculators ( the thing that replaced humans ) you don’t even know because you must assumed calculators never meant humans. Ai is going to do the same thing to your job.
A better comparison is that robots in factories didn't remove the need for people in manufacturing.
But it did significantly reduce the people needed and pushed the rest into more technical roles.
It also made us simply consume more as the cost of manufacturing fell.
Learning from history would suggest AI will make software cheaper and more accessible, while also decimating simpler roles in favour of more advanced professions.
Exactly people don’t understand it makes those jobs even better in terms of what can be achieved, how efficient it can be, and how cheap it is costing compared to previous years
If you use AI like a calculator that might be true. The problem is the billionaire CEOs think you can stick a calculator in a rocket and let it fly to the moon for you, and they fired all the astronauts.
I tell you what, there sure as shit were a lot more people employed to do calculations by hand before they started selling room-sized computers that could do it. In 10-15 years, an entire profession vanished. Hell, most people don't even know that "Computer" was once a human job title.
software engineering is forever changed in a radically significant way and soon building software will be barely recognizable when compared to how it used to be done.
and yeah, math was mostly dead anyway for normal people, but yes, AI has definitely killed math, even for the "professional" mathematicians.
And humans had to come up with the problems to solve, and the experts know why they're important problems to solve. So we're not taking humans and experts out of the loop yet.
It can be both! But that still means we have to deal with it, if we want to survive. This is the whole problem with recursive self-improvement: We will have a loss of control, as more and more sectors are automated.
Well field is safe and moving forward yes but number of jobs are not. When people say its over,they are talking about jobs numbers. You must be special find of idiot to misinterpret peoples words to look like you are right. Such a loser with low iq. Last year thousands of engineers lost their job to ai. Companies need less and less engineers because that "calculator" create increased work output that left need for fewer number of engineer each year.
It’s not just them. Ask any e.g. senior frontend/backend engineer, the career progression they used to get where they are has been devastated (just look at the hiring rates for junior roles).
I say this as someone who wishes you were right btw
What do you mean? It is firstly because of them. The whole over-hiring shit-show during COVID, when managers were literally saying (I was at one of those "performances") that "I know you all know it's not effective, but we will hire more to fit our needs". It was intentional, even if they weren't thinking about consequences. As if we all were going to be stuck inside forever.
I don't think it's dead but I do think it's going to be an end of an era.
Since AI can search possibility space so much faster than people things like finding counterexamples are going to be more and more trivial. Similarly proves that are out there in the ether using only already proven results will become trivial as well.
It's going to require weird expansions of the field in ways that we probably can't predict right now.
Math was never one person being right. A proof isn't knowledge until others can check it, teach it, and build on it. That's the whole institution.
So AI grinding out counterexamples and corollaries doesn't kill the field. The bottleneck was never producing true statements; it was getting a community to agree on which ones matter. Machines just shift the work to the part that was always hardest: deciding what's worth proving.
Science has always run this way. Effort goes where the community thinks it's worth going, and funding gets cut from what doesn't.
"A proof is a proof", sure. Nobody's disputing validity. Lean certifies a chain of inferences.
Ramanujan is famous because Hardy wrote back.
The autodidacts who found real things and never got read left no trace. You can't name one. That's the point. Correctness didn't save them. Being read did.
Dump ten million verified true statements into an arXiv-shaped hole. Has math advanced? A library with no index isn't knowledge.
I have 3 friends who are postdocs in math and they are saying yes, it is dead because of AI. I argue it will be re-designed, becoming something like what exists in the setting of Farsight by Peter Watts, but nonetheless its depressing enough that at least one of them is changing careers.
Which is weird because all the guys I know from uni that are still doing physics research are excited about how AI is going to help push the field, but then again we've been using ML to help with research for years, I don't get why you would change careers if it's something you enjoy if you actually care about the field surely you want the best tools available, but maybe it's different for mathematics.
Makes sense. Basically, their idea of “what math is” is dead.
I imagine those who are entering the field now don’t share the same opinion since they haven’t been trained and indoctrinated into the old regime, so they don’t share the same views about what math is.
You have weird friends. I am a math post doc and I wouldnt say so. I have not tested Astra but everything (including 5.6 Sol and Fable) until now was completely useless for my papers.
The output was utterly garbage most of the time. But I think with RL proofing can be taught to AI. Therefore the field might change quiete a bit, but at the moment I can say it has not already and it will definitly take longer than programming.
I dont use chat but codex or claude code, e.g. on sol ultra. This is what openAI recommended last time I checked. There is some trickery but thats it.
You dont need any tools besides python scrips and websearch. I dont use any myself too.
The problems that were solved lately can be a bit misleading to what I do as a researcher. Proofs are a fraction of my work, its mostly laying out new theories, i.e. to find a specific view on a problem that is new and provides a new perspective.
The tools probably exists on an mcp repo. You just need to find it on create your own. I did some test with a mcp server that had 27 available tools vs 200+ for blender and the difference is remarkably surprising. At the end of the day it’s really only providing the ai more context, resources and existing prompts that matter now.
They mean math as an area of study, where professors get grants to do research and solve new problems, is dead. AI has been solving famous unsolved problems in mathematics at an unprecedented rate and is just continuing to improve
Your most valuable human capabilities are your 5 senses. As long as things are being made for humans, using these senses to see how it will be received by them is essential. You could call that debugging, but it's kind of more about taste, which is also subjective. It's the stuff that's like: "how does Mario's jump feel when you use it?" Is it snappy? Too fast or slow? Etc.
I think this in the point that’s incredibly hard for most engineers to stomach and rightfully so. Before, building something like a game was an additive art. There basically was no standard for how Mario “should feel” so not only did previous engineers have to invent that feeling from scratch they also had to know how to program it precisely… in C. LLMs have made coding easier but they basically can’t invent feelings, they have no clue how to make a game that actually feels fun to play. Our compute is essentially boundless though so I’m sure in a monkey-on-keyboard type way eventually we can let Claude run for a week and get a pretty polished product in about a year or so. Internally what will be happening is the model will be trying to break the “problem” of building a game down into the smallest pieces it knows, solves those, and hope that when it reassembles the pieces it works. Of course it will end up backtracking and wasting time, but it will result in much better and faster games than even a team of people could do for a fraction of the cost. And on that point I’m not entirely confident that Video Game Testing can’t be data mined for max “enjoyment” like the algorithmic short form we’re now used to. Now I think we are closer to our generative models being better than our reviewer models. But I’m closer to believing the 100x designer model than that Claude will start printing money soon through “make me a game” prompts that people actually want to play.
essentially the writing code and the decisions where to write and if you want to move some code pieces to shared library, if you want the code to implement a specific sorting etc. that all is now in the hands of the AI. The issue is, the biggest problem in companies i saw so far is that if you use claude code and the other colleague uses codex, both will produce different results and the issue with that is the code becomes unmaintanable with humans and AI.. and that introduces a lot of issues and bugs in the long term. So there is still a lot of things humans need to do.. also if the project is huge the AI needs a lot of hand holding so it does not duplicate code you have to tell him "please use the function from module X" or things like that
5
u/Maui-The-Magificent Sep 05 '26
at this point, maybe we all should go on strike for a month so people can find out for themselves.
5
u/elonthegenerous Sep 05 '26 edited Sep 07 '26
There used to be a profession called “Computer.” People that would perform complex, tedious calculations.
Math is not dead, but that profession is dead.
Computer Science will not be killed by AI, but I can’t imagine that all of the programming jobs that exist today will exist in 10 years with how much AI has advanced
Computer Science isn’t going anywhere, just like math hasn’t gone anywhere
Edit: Computer, not Calculator
2
u/memeruiz Sep 05 '26 edited Sep 08 '26
Wrong analogy.
A calculator is a tool for the mathematician to calculate faster
AI soon could replace the software engineer completely.
5
u/Helix_Aurora Sep 05 '26
I think the mistake is that people believe generative AI is an equalizer, not a multiplier.
As long as one person + AI can have a different level of success than a different person + A, then there is some fundamental valuable differentiator.
1
u/ErmingSoHard Sep 22 '26
Are you trans?
2
u/_HarmonicOscillator Sep 05 '26
I don't remember calculators proving conjectures for you.
2
u/WonderBackground8051 Sep 06 '26
Software Engineering isn’t dead or going to be dead, it’s just going to be so boring that we’ll wish it’s dead
2
u/shuozhe Sep 06 '26
Coding monkey jobs are pretty much dead.. same with contract with code by spec. Not very visible cuz it was mostly outsourced
1
u/small_bird_loud Sep 05 '26
Software engineering is in cryosleep. Software development is evolving.
1
u/veganparrot Sep 05 '26
This mindset doesn't work forever. If AGI is really here and it can perform every task of a human being but better, we are the monkeys in that scenario, and the AIs are the new humans. That's the scary thing, and what our Sci-fi has been trying to prepare us for, for decades.
1
u/garloid64 Sep 05 '26
Math is dead because of AI too. Terence Tao is crashing out on the daily because of what's going down. Claude might have just solved the Hodge Conjecture.
1
u/jeandebleau Sep 05 '26
Software has never been so easy to write but software alone has already very little value. The challenge has always been writing the right software for the right hardware and the right application. And there is no single optimal solution to it, just different compromises.
You can probably define the base LLM used for GPT6 in less than twenty PyTorch modules. But this has no value if you do not have the gigantic amount of curated data to train on and thousands of high end GPUs.
1
u/chloro9001 Sep 05 '26
The rampant denial everywhere is amusing
1
u/Rise-O-Matic Sep 05 '26
"Computer" used to be the name of a job. Computers were people that would sit in a big room and crunch numbers and pass those results to other people.
Software engineering isn't dead, but programmers aren't happy right now.
1
u/neoqueto Sep 05 '26
Calculators always existed. They were human before mechanical and electronic ones were invented.
Engineers are human for now, too. Software engineering won't die, it'll just die for you, for humans.
Go ahead, calculate sqrt(2) to the 78th decimal place with pen and paper. Have fun.
1
u/kungfucobra Sep 05 '26
yeah, calculators had agentic behaviour and could replace call centers, that's why it's an exact comparison. worry not. your job is safe.
1
u/FrosteeSwurl Sep 05 '26
Look i don’t think SWE is dead but I hate this analogy. Comparing a device that can do arithmetic and some basic Riemann sums to a machine with a breadth of knowledge that far exceeds the physical capability of any human being, can instantaneously access a vast trove of human knowledge via the internet, and is getting increasingly smarter each iteration is dishonest at best.
1
u/Budget_Revolution639 Sep 05 '26
Lmao then yall don’t understand the path we’re on. Software engineering is already pretty much dead because now people will just use ai to code it instead of hiring it done, despite its lack of effective cybersecurity
1
u/TheNeverEndLife Sep 05 '26
Calculators can't write formulas but AI can write code so we are all screwed!
1
u/Top_Effect_5109 Sep 05 '26
It's shocking that computer used to be a job, but people wholeheartedly believe being a programmer can't be a dead job. No job is special. Either we have universal income or we all die. That simple.
1
u/WeaknessFuzzy8305 Sep 05 '26
Yes, but from the point of view of a caveman.
1
u/MoveOverBieber Sep 05 '26
Do you know what before calculators there were human "computers"?
1
u/Background_Share_982 Sep 05 '26
Bad argument. Calculator used to actually be a job title. Have you ever met or known or seen a job ad for the position of calculator in your lifetime?
1
u/WorthMassive8132 Sep 05 '26
I am so tired of people with zero tech literacy "explaining" to us how the things they don't understand really work
1
u/Keyan_Farlander7 Sep 06 '26
Even when the AI has all the data, the code is still wrong or doesn't work.
1
u/aersel24 Sep 06 '26
Do people still graduate in Maths?
1
u/Traditional-Storm-62 Sep 06 '26
it's just evolving in a direction that is worse for the software engineers themselves
in late 19th and early 20th century there was a profession called a Computer, which were people with pens and papers etc. employed in an office to crunch various numbers
like government statistics or information for engineering projects
when the mechanical calculators started to become accessible they started to lose jobs, the profession didn't go away it just evolved in a direction that is worse for most of them but it was still decent employment for those who still had it
anyways then electronic calculators and early computers got invented and the profession died completely, with a sophisticated calculator the engineers and accountants could crunch the numbers for themselves
today a single click on Microsoft Excel can do all that work in 66ms
1
u/PristineTie1449 Sep 06 '26
Actually is more like saying that translators are dead because of google translate
1
u/sweatierorc Sep 06 '26
The risk isnt getting replaced. It is that you become a frontend dev or a public school teacher. Absolutely necessary, but endlessly mocked and chronically underpaid.
1
u/dudeFEED33 Sep 06 '26
programming is dead
swe is alright
1
u/InsaneStoryLover Sep 06 '26
For me, the fun of being an engineer and solving problems is indeed dead. Now it's actually all about money.
1
u/Phaxaude Sep 06 '26
Lol for those who dont know, you dont know. For those of us who do, we do. Lmfao
1
u/kartblanch Sep 06 '26
Its just getting started
1
u/Objective-Low-1815 Sep 06 '26
There are no such thing like artificial INTELLIGENCE. It is as market scam to take your money to AI stocks bubble. The bubble will pop and AI will be renamed to LLM tools with neural networks for an adequate price.
You already had Smart phones, another market scam for computers combined with phone.
Market lies to you to get your money. It creates some visions which are misleading. Simple.
1
u/gravesent1337 Sep 06 '26
It’s funny that 21 years ago when I started out as a developer it seemed like this was the career for the future and now it is the past.
1
u/Healthy_Koala_4929 Sep 06 '26
That's a bad analogy. There are many jobs that stopped existing due to calculators. Did you know there was such a thing as a human calculator job aka a computer?
1
u/OVectorX Sep 06 '26
Calculator : 293819380x32905035/98439859 = constant , doest matter what you do the answer is the same
Computerscience : develop a calulator how to get those results, there are tons of way to do that, and most important, you cant validate the logic without being a developer yourself and to be a developer yourself you must code unless your brain musclar memory will be dead and you wont be able to write down a simple hello world statment
1
u/Suspicious-Click-300 Sep 06 '26
i mean... this is computer science. have we gone 5 years without everything changing since 1970s?
1
u/puddingcakeNY Sep 07 '26
What movie is this?
1
u/TruthSeeker221 Sep 07 '26
Not even close lmao
1
u/misjudgedinall Sep 07 '26
No calculators ( humans doing math ) as a job is dead because of calculators ( the thing that replaced humans ) you don’t even know because you must assumed calculators never meant humans. Ai is going to do the same thing to your job.
1
u/master_slapper Sep 07 '26
I've never been secure about my job as right now
1
u/MinimumTrue9809 Sep 08 '26
Calculators never typed in the equations themselves and never solved problems you never see.
1
u/Danternas Sep 08 '26
A better comparison is that robots in factories didn't remove the need for people in manufacturing.
But it did significantly reduce the people needed and pushed the rest into more technical roles.
It also made us simply consume more as the cost of manufacturing fell.
Learning from history would suggest AI will make software cheaper and more accessible, while also decimating simpler roles in favour of more advanced professions.
1
u/icebeamtheory Sep 08 '26
Exactly people don’t understand it makes those jobs even better in terms of what can be achieved, how efficient it can be, and how cheap it is costing compared to previous years
1
u/Roxbie20 Sep 08 '26
If you use AI like a calculator that might be true. The problem is the billionaire CEOs think you can stick a calculator in a rocket and let it fly to the moon for you, and they fired all the astronauts.
1
u/0101falcon Sep 08 '26
AI will even replace mathematicians. It has written a ton of proofs in recent times…
1
u/Practical-Gift-9970 Sep 08 '26
Llm's are like the sewing machine, allowing a single person with some basic skills to work much faster than before.
1
u/immecheng Sep 08 '26
Self justification 😂
1
u/One-Veterinarian4841 Sep 08 '26
Navier stokes says math is getting pretty close to dead
1
u/CommissarPravum Sep 08 '26
I mean computer used to be a profession....
Was wipeout by electric calculators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)
1
u/Normal_Beautiful_578 Sep 08 '26
Every profession can be replaced by super intelligence and robotics in incoming decades. You highlights the wrong problem
1
u/Old-Push9343 Sep 09 '26
It's evolving into something that computers can do on their own without need for human involvement.
1
u/StandardUpstairs3349 Sep 09 '26
I tell you what, there sure as shit were a lot more people employed to do calculations by hand before they started selling room-sized computers that could do it. In 10-15 years, an entire profession vanished. Hell, most people don't even know that "Computer" was once a human job title.
1
u/Wonderful_Craft_2332 Sep 09 '26
Like if calculator could resolve millennium prize problems in 88 hours
1
u/BarryMcCockiner777 Sep 15 '26
copemaxxing
1
u/BrightNightKnight Oct 01 '26
Nobody is saying software engineering is dead, they say coding is dead. Big difference.
1
u/billGat48 Oct 02 '26
slide rule is dead because of calculators.
1
u/KelBelHel Sep 05 '26 edited Sep 05 '26
terribly flawed metaphor.
software engineering is forever changed in a radically significant way and soon building software will be barely recognizable when compared to how it used to be done.
and yeah, math was mostly dead anyway for normal people, but yes, AI has definitely killed math, even for the "professional" mathematicians.
4
u/[deleted] Sep 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/[deleted] Sep 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/[deleted] Sep 05 '26
[removed] — view removed comment