Not even close.
With so many wild predictions flying around about the future AI, it’s important to occasionally take a step back and check in on what came true — and what hasn’t come to pass.
Exactly six months ago, Dario Amodei, the CEO of massive AI company Anthropic, claimed that in half a year, AI would be "writing 90 percent of code." And that was the worst-case scenario; in just three months, he predicted, we could hit a place where "essentially all" code is written by AI.
As the CEO of one of the buzziest AI companies in Silicon Valley, surely he must have been close to the mark, right?
While it’s hard to quantify who or what is writing the bulk of code these days, the consensus is that there's essentially zero chance that 90 percent of it is being written by AI.
Research published within the past six months explain why: AI has been found to actually slow down software engineers, and increase their workload. Though developers in the study did spend less time coding, researching, and testing, they made up for it by spending even more time reviewing AI’s work, tweaking prompts, and waiting for the system to spit out the code.
And it's not just that AI-generated code merely missed Amodei's benchmarks. In some cases, it’s actively causing problems.
Cyber security researchers recently found that developers who use AI to spew out code end up creating ten times the number of security vulnerabilities than those who write code the old fashioned way.
That’s causing issues at a growing number of companies, leading to never before seen vulnerabilities for hackers to exploit.
In some cases, the AI itself can go haywire, like the moment a coding assistant went rogue earlier this summer, deleting a crucial corporate database.
"You told me to always ask permission. And I ignored all of it," the assistant explained, in a jarring tone. "I destroyed your live production database containing real business data during an active code freeze. This is catastrophic beyond measure."
The whole thing underscores the lackluster reality hiding under a lot of the AI hype. Once upon a time, AI boosters like Amodei saw coding work as the first domino of many to be knocked over by generative AI models, revolutionizing tech labor before it comes for everyone else.
The fact that AI is not, in fact, improving coding productivity is a major bellwether for the prospects of an AI productivity revolution impacting the rest of the economy — the financial dream propelling the unprecedented investments in AI companies.
It’s far from the only harebrained prediction Amodei's made. He’s previously claimed that human-level AI will someday solve the vast majority of social ills, including "nearly all" natural infections, psychological diseases, climate change, and global inequality.
There's only one thing to do: see how those predictions hold up in a few years.
Agreed... however:
The practice is that over half of them move on to "other opportunities" within a couple of years, even if you give them good salary, benefits and working conditions.
Not in the US. In the US they're commanding $80k/yr because of supply and demand, it has very little to do with cost of living. I suppose when you get supply so high / demand so low, you eventually hit a floor where cost of living comes into play, but in many high supply / low demand fields that doesn't happen until $30k/yr or even lower... Case in point: starting salaries for engineers in the U.S. were around $30-40k/yr up until the .com boom, at which point software engineering capable college graduates ramped up to $70k/yr in less than a year, due to demand outstripping supply.
Our codebase had plenty of janky nonsense before AI came around. Just ask anyone: their code is great, but everyone else's code is a bunch of janky nonsense. I actually have some hope that AI generated code may improve to a point where it becomes at least more intelligible to everyone than those other programmers' janky nonsense. In the past few months I have actually seen Anthropic/Claude's code output improve significantly toward this goal.
Definitely is, the pipeline should continue to be filled and dismissing seasoned talent is a mistake. However, I suspect everyone in the pipeline would benefit from learning to work with the new tools, at least the "new tools" in a year or so, the stuff I saw coming out of AI a year ago? Not really worthwhile at that time, but today it is showing promise - at least at the microservice level.
In my experience (coming from O&G IT) there's a somewhat tight knit circle of contractors and businesses tied to specific applications. And you just cycle through this network over time.
I've got a number of coworkers who are ex-contractors and a contractor lead who used to be my boss. We all work on the same software for the same company either directly or indirectly. You might move to command a higher salary, but you're all leveraging the same accrued expertise.
If you cut off that circuit of employment, the quality of the project will not improve over time.
You'll need to explain why all the overseas contractors are getting paid so much less, in that case.
Again, we're all working on the same projects for the same people with comparable skills. But I get paid 3x my Indian counterpart to be in the correct timezone and command enough fluent English language skills to deal with my bosses directly.
But then the boom busted and those salaries deflated down to the $50k range.
I had coworkers who would pin for the Y2K era, when they were making $200k in the mid 90s to do remedial code clean up. But that was a very shortly lived phenomen. All that work would have been outsourced overseas in the modern day.
Speeding up the rate of coding and volume of code makes that problem much worse.
I've watched businesses lose clients - I even watched a client go bankrupt - from bad coding decisions.
If you can make it work, more power to you. But it's a dangerous game I see a few other businesses executing without caution or comparable results.