AI is making junior devs useless

2026-03-0113:49217382beabetterdev.com

All things Software Engineering, Software Design/Architecture, and AWS.

So I got this comment on my last video and it genuinely stopped me in my tracks. It was from @Thiccolo and it reads:

“For someone like you, who likely has years of experience without LLMs, your brain totally understands good code/bad code, good architecture, and just general intuition around code and systems. LLMs must be an absolute gamechanger. But for someone like me who is starting out in this field, how am I supposed to build the years of experience and intuition that comes from manually writing code and building systems when companies are expecting AI to be used from here on out?”

The number of upvotes this got told me everything. A lot of you are feeling this exact thing and not really talking about it. So let’s talk about it.

Here’s the real problem. AI is making it really easy to build what I’d call shallow competence. You’re shipping fast, your manager’s happy, things look good on paper. But the moment someone in a code review asks you “hey why did you go with this approach?” and you freeze. Because honestly? You don’t know. The AI gave it to you and you just ran with it. Does this sound familiar?

That’s a problem. And it’s going to catch up with you.

To be clear, the reason experienced developers are valuable isn’t because we write code faster than you. It’s because we’ve spent years learning what not to do. We’ve made terrible architectural decisions and had to live with them. We’ve been paged at 2am because of something we shipped that seemed totally fine. That failure pattern recognition is what companies are actually paying for. And right now, a lot of junior devs are accidentally skipping all of that.

When I was learning, and I know this is going to sound like “back in my day” type stuff, struggle was just a given. You had a bug, you read the stack trace, you traced through the code, you dug through the logs. That was just the job. Nobody was handing you answers. And as frustrating as that was, it’s exactly how I built the intuition I still rely on today.

Okay so what do you actually do about this? I put together 5 strategies that I think can genuinely help. And I’ll be straight with you, some of them are more practical, some of them are more mindset-y. But all of them matter.

1. Learn the fundamentals — for real

I know, I know. Everyone says this. But I mean it in a specific way. You need to know what good looks like before you can evaluate what AI is giving you. Otherwise you’re just blindly accepting whatever it spits out.

Two books I’d genuinely recommend — I’ve got them right here on my desk. Head First Design Patterns is excellent for understanding coding patterns, which ones to reach for and why. And Designing Data-Intensive Applications is one of those books that I wish I’d read earlier — when I finally did read it a few years into my career I kept going “oh, I learned this the hard way.” That’s a sign of a good book.

2. Study failures

This one is so underrated. Cloudflare, AWS, Azure, Google … whenever there’s a big outage, these companies publish detailed post-mortems. What happened, what the root cause was, how they fixed it, what they’re doing to prevent it. Read those documents. They’re gold.

If you’re at a bigger company there’s probably an internal version of this too. At Amazon they’re called COEs — Correction of Errors. Facebook has their own version. Most big tech companies do. Go find them and read them. There’s something about understanding exactly how a complex system fell apart that just sticks with you in a way that reading documentation never does.

3. Manufacture the struggle

This is the big one for me. Before AI, struggling through a problem wasn’t optional — it was just what you did. Now there’s an escape hatch available 24/7 and it’s really, really tempting to use it every single time.

Don’t.

Before you paste that error into an AI, actually try to figure it out yourself first. Read the stack trace. Trace through the code. Go through the logs. Try to form a hypothesis about what went wrong. This is how you build real debugging instincts. You can still use AI afterwards, but make the attempt first.

Same thing goes for tickets. I always say the best way to learn how a system works is to go and fix things that are broken in it. Sign up for on-call, pick up the tickets nobody else wants. It feels like a grind but you will learn more from that than almost anything else.

4. Never ship code you don’t understand

I feel pretty strongly about this one. If I’m reviewing your code and I ask you why you went with a certain approach, and you tell me “the AI suggested it”, I’ve immediately lost confidence in you. Not because you used AI, but because you clearly didn’t bother to understand what you were putting in front of me.

Every line you commit, you should be able to defend. Why this library? Why this pattern? What are the trade-offs? If you can’t answer that, you’re not ready to ship it. It doesn’t matter if you need to go a bit slower to get there, go slower. The alternative is building a reputation as someone who just copies and pastes, and that’s really hard to shake.

5. Prompt for the why, not just the answer

This is more of a tactical one. When you’re working with AI, instead of just asking it to solve your problem, ask it to give you a few different approaches and explain the pros and cons of each. Ask it why it’s recommending one option over another.

Two things happen when you do this. First, you actually learn something about the trade-offs instead of just accepting the first answer. Second, AI will sometimes actually change its recommendation when you force it to reason through it out loud. So you’re not just learning more, you’re often getting a better answer too.

Now look, I know some of you are reading this and thinking “okay but Daniel, if I slow down I’m going to look bad. Everyone else is shipping twice as fast.”

And yeah, that tension is real, I’m not going to pretend it isn’t.

But here’s the thing. You can’t completely stop, obviously. What you can do is be smart about finding the pockets. Your downtime, side projects, the tickets nobody’s fighting over. That’s where you do the deliberate, uncomfortable learning. You don’t have to torpedo your output — you just have to be intentional about when and where you’re building real skills versus just shipping.

And honestly? You’re in a better position than you might think. You have access to something I genuinely dreamed about when I was learning — AI that can explain anything to you, at any time, at whatever level of depth you want. Use it as a tutor. Ask it to explain things. Make it teach you, not just do things for you.

The bottom line is this: your value as a developer is not in your ability to ship code. It’s in your ability to look at code — whatever produced it — and know whether it’s good or not. That’s what companies are going to need going forward.

Build that skill set now. You’ve got the tools. Use them wisely.

📚 Books I mentioned:

🎉 Grab the free reference guide for all 5 strategies here


Read the original article

Comments

  • By keeda 2026-03-0121:4810 reply

    I maintain that in the future, any person wishing to learn any skill (not just coding!) will need to willingly eschew the use of AI when learning until they have "built the muscles". The literature is clear that repeated, hands-on practice is really the only way to build skills.

    I suspect the progression will be "No AI until intuition (whatever that is for that skill)" -> "Gradual use of AI to understand where it falls short" -> "AI native expert".

    How to actually implement this at scale is still TBD ;-) Ironically, AI will be invaluable for this e.g. as a hyper-personalized tutor but it will also present an irresistible temptation to offload the hands-on practice. We already have studies indicating the former is helpful but the latter stifles mastery. At this point I can only see self-discipline as a mechanism to willingly avoid AI.

    Unfortunately, our testing-oriented education system only serves to incentivize over-reliance on AI (Goodhart's Law etc.) None of our current institutions and processes are suited for what is already happening and will only accelerate from here on. Things will need to change radically.

    For this reason, I once predicted apprenticeships will be a thing again, and already there are signs with Microsoft's preceptorship proposal: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3779312

    This is highly encouraging because a tech giant is not only acknowledging the problem, but proposing a solution. Not a complete solution by far but at least a start.

    • By nerdsniper 2026-03-0123:382 reply

      I learned Calculus despite having access to Mathematica, TI-89/92/CX-CAS, and WolframAlpha. I still had to do hundreds of derivations and integrations and manual manipulation of separable differential equations entirely by hand to learn it. But these tools made it easier for me to understand what I was doing wrong.

      So, I agree with you, but it's also already been true for decades now with other tools.

      • By array_key_first 2026-03-0123:521 reply

        All these tools only replace mechanical aspects, not thinking ones. AI is truly unique and unprecedented in that way.

        A spellchecker is purely mechanical, it just helps you spell your essay right. But it won't make your essay good, or help you write the right essay.

        • By nerdsniper 2026-03-0123:551 reply

          Integration in calculus often required me to "guess" a strategy ahead of time. It was more similar to searching for moves in chess than solving long division. Some moves would make it easier vs. harder and some would seemingly be a dead end.

          WolframAlpha usually got to the correct answer, but often used a non-human strategy for integration. Generally, the best way to do it was simpler than what WolframAlpha's "step-by-step" showed, which was rather "brute force" and inelegant.

          So, again, I agree. But again, it's a matter of degree and encompassing more domains vs. a binary change.

          • By array_key_first 2026-03-022:261 reply

            It's a different degree sure, but it's a big enough leap I consider it a different thing. It's similar to paying someone to do your homework or write your essays. Your critical thinking approaches zero, which is really bad for education.

      • By LovelyButterfly 2026-03-035:32

        In another two examples:

        As a kid, I remember my teachers not allowing us to use calculators and times table pencils exactly to make us go through the painful process of using our brain to get to know math.

        Today I'm doing a Master's on AI and AI is a tool I use not only to summarize, but to validate my understading. I don't jump into a GPT session asking it to do the exercise for me or to explain something. I ask it to help me finding out my error after inumerous tries; to say the same thing me in another words because English isn't my first language and often I don't know the terminology that the Academia uses; to write an analogy (which often absurd ones pop up); to guide me where I'm missing something.

        It's a freaking powerful learning tool if used properly.

    • By gedy 2026-03-021:521 reply

      Proud of my son as he's doing that without any prompting (ba dump tish). When I offered Claude pass, he said "I won't learn anything that way"

      • By fdgg 2026-03-021:58

        Your kid is gonna do well in life.

    • By kazinator 2026-03-023:28

      > The literature is clear that repeated, hands-on practice is really the only way to build skills.

      The centuries of literature we have on this contrasts hands-on practice with theory: not actually doing the thing, but studying how other people do it, in order to gain knowledge that will be helpful when you get your hands into it.

      This is different: this is like having a slave do it for you.

      We know from history that the slave owners didn't know how to do the work. E.g. kings and feudal lords didn't know how to herd animals or raise grains, etc.

    • By jimbokun 2026-03-025:371 reply

      Here is a full proof plan to prevent students from abusing AI:

      Pencil and paper exams, taken in person with all electronic devices prohibited.

      • By keeda 2026-03-026:511 reply

        Haven't been able to verify, but somebody on a podcast mentioned that sales of paper and stationery have started soaring precisely because of this.

        Edited to add: I think this is worth trying, but not nearly sufficient. I would not be surprised if all we see is that grades plummet because until the pen-and-paper tests the students have just been winging it with AI.

        • By jimbokun 2026-03-0218:151 reply

          Then any student who cares about his or her grades will change his or her study habits very quickly.

          • By Jestzer 2026-03-0316:591 reply

            I would call that an optimistic take. It’s far more likely kids will complain, which leads to parents complaining, which leads to the teacher changing whatever was being complained about. From my experiences, school seems to not be a place where people take accountability, but instead, play a constant game of shifting blame when failure arises.

    • By fdgg 2026-03-021:061 reply

      "At this point I can only see self-discipline as a mechanism to willingly avoid AI"

      Do you realise how difficult this actually is? Millions of people have zero self-discipline with their consumption of social media.

      • By keeda 2026-03-027:02

        Yep! Which is exactly why I said implementing this at scale is TBD, I personally have no idea ;-)

        One strategy I can think of is to remove the incentive to offload to AI, which probably means reducing the reliance on tests for evaluation. However, this also assumes intrinsic motivation within the students, which is also far from a given! Who's going to be motivated to do things the "hard way" when they don't even like the topic? Yet our curriculum is full of compulsory topics.

        Like I said, none of our current systems are structured for this, and we'll probably have to figure things out from the ground up.

    • By doginasuit 2026-03-023:47

      An apprenticeship is great for all sorts of reasons that AI can never touch, but I don't think abandoning AI will be necessary unless you aren't really motivated by a desire to understand and do the thing you are trying to learn. If you are, it is an incredible tool.

    • By dzonga 2026-03-0215:171 reply

      I also agree - however the ART of making software that's simple and works is disappearing fast.

      One of the most impactful things in my career was watching Simple Made Easy by Rich Hickey

      our industry is part engineering | part art (i.e having taste) - A.I doesn't have taste (hence why vibe coding) doesn't work - the art of engineering is reducing the amount of code you've to write

      it's not about saying YES to every feature - but saying NO and shipping the most impactful feature in the smallest amount of time. sometimes it's about stepping back to relearn so you can do things the right way.

      whereas AI is about producing the most amount of code possible - which is the very antithesis of Software Engineering

      • By xyzzy123 2026-03-0215:35

        > the art of engineering is reducing the amount of code you've to write

        I would argue that it's _scaling_ software development?

        Making it so that you can create bigger programs: that accomodate more contributors, more requirements, faster, with more features, while being more correct, etc, without everything collapsing into spaghetti and chaos?

        Historically, keeping a close eye on lines of code spent helped a lot along most axes. Finding ways to keep "code spent" down will remain very valuable but I don't think it's the _only_ way to scale?

        Along the way we've developed architecture conventions, useful interfaces, test practices, standards, protocols, plugins & extension points, package repositories, etc. There are also social technologies like mailing lists, SIGs, bdfls, modern project & product management, etc etc.

        To the extent that simplicity is measurable (less LoC spent, less code coupling, less cyclomatic complexity) it seems like it can be addressed as an optimisation problem and automated.

    • By idontwantthis 2026-03-022:01

      I think it all comes down to whether you want to learn something or have something. I can have an app in a few hours just like I can listen to a song on spotify. Or I can learn to code just like I can learn to play piano.

    • By JackSlateur 2026-03-0316:381 reply

      The literature is also clear: lack of practice leads to atrophy

      • By keeda 2026-03-0318:28

        Yeah I expect, just like physical exercise, people will need to get their hands dirty on a regular basis to stay competitive.

        In fact, this is nothing new, and even encoded as a requirement for many professions like lawyers and doctors: to maintain their licenses, they are required to take hours of "professional development" every year or so to keep their skills up-to-date.

        This process is regularly gamed, of course, but I suspect with AI people won't have that luxury.

    • By tim333 2026-03-0210:573 reply

      >"built the muscles"

      You can build muscles by digging a field by hand but most people commercially use tractors. And operating tractors is a skill but a different one.

      I imagine it'll go like that with AI. People will use it and learn the skill of using AI.

      I mean you can learn the skill the machine does if you want like learning to write machine code rather than using a compiler but there may be a limited number of people doing that.

      • By keeda 2026-03-0216:57

        The problem with the tractor analogy is that there is not much that can go wrong in digging with a machine versus by hand. However, AI, like people, makes non-obvious mistakes that require a high level of skill to catch.

        For instance, what we're seeing with pure vibe-coding is that even the best models make small mistakes, usually in the architecture but often in even lower-level abstractions, that compound over time resulting in unmanageable complexity. Senior engineers are able to spot and fix these issues early based on intuition, but that intuition has come from a lot of hands-on experience.

        Using AI for a given skill is becoming a separate skill in itself, for sure. But this still requires having an understanding of the original skill itself.

        I think this requirement won't change until we have super-intelligence, where AI is consistently much better than humans, i.e. beyond AGI. Because even at human-level performance, the only human that can verify an expert's work is another expert.

      • By jplusequalt 2026-03-1014:58

        >You can build muscles by digging a field by hand but most people commercially use tractors.

        Have you met a farmer? Most farmers are strong as all hell.

      • By ThrowawayR2 2026-03-0219:27

        And the tractor operator with weak muscles is up the creek without a paddle in any situation that comes up that the tractor can't handle. They are also toast if the tractor's own advancements in automation renders less and less relevant.

        Our only value in an LLM dominated world is the ability to handle the situations that the LLMs can't. Those who let their skills and critical thinking atrophy (or never built them in the first place), well, they're simply not going to make it. Shepherding LLMs is not a difficult skill to acquire and isn't going to be enough to let us maintain our value.

  • By BobbyJo 2026-03-0115:4321 reply

    Junior devs have always been useless. You used to give them tasks that take them a week or two even though a senior engineer could do it in a couple hours, not because you wanted them to contribute, but because you wanted them to learn to contribute.

    The same ethos makes sense with AI, it's just that every company is trying to avoid paying that training tax. Why turn a junior into a senior yourself if you can get the competition to pay for it instead.

    • By nostrademons 2026-03-0117:328 reply

      It's interesting that the same dynamic is playing out on a much larger scale with children. A child is far more helpless than a junior engineer - at least a junior engineer can feed themselves, wipe their own butt, avoid destroying the room, and generally keep themselves alive. Everybody wants to offload the cost of raising children to parents, because the economic benefits aren't realized for 25+ years yet the costs are very substantial (frequently, at least one parent's full-time attention, costing them an income). Prospective parents are saying "fuck that shit" and simply choosing not to have children.

      The long-term effects are going to be much like the effect of the software industry turning away from juniors: total collapse. When you have no workforce, you'll do no work - hell, there is just...nothing, nonexistence, no consumers either. But the fertility bust operates on a longer timescale (I think the software industry will start feeling the dearth of juniors in ~5 years, the economy as a whole won't feel the dearth of children for ~5), and it's far more fundamental. Rather than one industry disappearing, all industries will disappear, likely refactored into something that looks far different.

      It also reminds me of those ecological predator/prey/locust models that I studied in calculus class, where population dynamics for many species have a tendency to overshoot the carrying capacity of the environment. Each individual in the population makes their own reproductive & survival decisions, but the sum total of them leads to population collapse and a near total extinction, followed by recovery once the survivors find resources abundant again.

      • By overfeed 2026-03-0121:34

        > When you have no workforce, you'll do no work - hell, there is just...nothing, nonexistence, no consumers either.

        But for a beautiful moment in time, we created a lot of value for shareholders

        https://www.insidehook.com/culture/story-tom-toro-new-yorker...

      • By qball 2026-03-021:131 reply

        >Prospective parents are saying "fuck that shit" and simply choosing not to have children.

        Or in other words, they've been priced out of the market.

        If there will be no sociofinancial niche for their children to inhabit this is in fact the rational course of action. See also: South Korean current birth rates.

      • By Root_Denied 2026-03-0120:541 reply

        It's basically a "Tragedy of the Commons" situation across the board.

        • By wazoox 2026-03-0121:071 reply

          Sort of. With the salient point that nothing really exists, but the commons. The individual is nothing without the whole society around.

          • By nostrademons 2026-03-0122:11

            Also sort of. Some form of social organization seems to be necessary for humans to function. But humans are also pretty good (well - relatively speaking, it usually seems to require a war or revolution) at changing that form of social organization as technology, population, and environmental conditions change.

            I think this is a very likely outcome. We aren't going to get continued population growth next generation; a significant number of the people needed for it will never be born. This is going to have ripple effects across wide swaths of political and economic organization. But you'll have pockets of population that basically barricade themselves off from the wider economic world and insulate themselves from its collapse, and then the people within them, along with whatever form of social organization they happen to adopt.

      • By zenware 2026-03-0214:481 reply

        That being said, a huge amount of the work being done (arguably all of it) is in support of humans. It would follow then that the more of us there are the more work is required, whereas if there were fewer of us less work is required. — I think the real concerns about birth-rate/population decline come from “borrowing against the future”, if that future never materializes then you cashed bad checks.

        • By drcxd 2026-03-031:55

          In my opinion, reproduction is based on the idea "borrowing against the future", or Ponzi Scheme, because reproduction is based on the idea that "we would have a better future", but in fact, we will not.

      • By yoz-y 2026-03-038:58

        I feel that. I am expecting my first child in a couple of months and the lack of support infrastructure makes me extremely anxious. We don’t have our family around to support us. The cost of services to take care of young children are so high that it makes almost no sense for both parents to continue working. The declining birth rates are truly no surprise.

      • By ffsm8 2026-03-0118:075 reply

        The Birthrate dropping has multiple causes, none of them have any relation to the topic at hand

        It's a negative (from the perspective of reproduction) confluence of both social and economic developments.

        E.g. the death of the traditional gender roles has inevitably reduced birth rates - for multiple reasons to boot. Because on the one hand, the women has am easier time not to commit and just sleep around, consequently becoming uninteresting to men that would've preferred to make a family... But also because biologically, men are more attracted to demure women, which on average will ultimately remove even more attraction, consequently removing even more likelihood of families being built.

        But that's once again only one factor, you got others too... Like stagnant wages, which force younger people too abstain from making a family simply because the financial situation doesn't allow for it. And if it happens anyway, it's more then likely to end in a broken family instead of something positive

        Another factor is the availability of choice. Dating apps are available, statistically women all try to get into a relationship with the same 1% of men - who sleep around and cause toxicity all around. The remaining 99% become bitter and consequently... Are even less attractive to women.

        Just to be clear, in case someones brain has completely rotten through and interprets any blame into my comment: neither sex is responsible for this. Our society just decided to move on from gender roles, for supposedly economic reasons.

        The consequences are felt both for women and men, with both feeling less valued and miserable on average. Which understandably makes them less attractive to the other sex again.

        Still not a full list of factors at play btw, there is also the builtup of micro plastics in the men's balls, harming sperm production along with normalization of pornography, reducing the sexual frustration of people and consequently making them less driven to find partners. There is also the influencer industry, purposefully encouraging para social relationships, satisfying the social urges of a lot of people, consequently reducing the likelihood of them seeking out friendships... Reducing the likelihood of meeting other people and thus reducing the likelihood of getting a natural relationship through that.

        Third places have also mostly vanished, likely related to multiple of these effects to etc pp

        • By ash_091 2026-03-0120:001 reply

          > statistically women all try to get into a relationship with the same 1% of men - who sleep around and cause toxicity all around. The remaining 99% become bitter and consequently... Are even less attractive to women.

          As a regular 30s dude, definitely not 1% by any measure, app dating had its rough spots but generally was a good time, I experienced no bitterness.

          Instead I met a bunch of interesting people and found my partner. We now own a house and are talking about kids.

          The real toxicity here is the idea that women at large are somehow responsible for anyone's lack of dating success.

          For anyone reading this who might be dating and feel disheartened- the hard truth is that you have two options: you can either blame the group of people you're trying to attract for having faulty preferences, or you can reflect and work on yourself and your approach. Only one of these has any chance of helping you.

          One thing I do agree with you on: bitterness is extremely unattractive.

          • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0120:262 reply

            For context, I don’t want this to sound bitter. The first time I was single as an adult was from 1996-2002 and dating apps weren’t a thing. The second time I was single was from 2006-2011 and I wasn’t really trying to date and spent most of the time getting my head back in the game and just hanging out with female friends until I started dating my now wife who I met at work. Even she had to make the first move.

            That being said as five foot four guy, the chance of me having any success on a dating app at the time from everything I know would have been basically 0 no matter what. “Working on myself” would have done no good. I was objectively in great shape as a part time fitness instructor and I just run my first (and last) two half marathons before I met my wife.

            Some guys just haven’t won the genetic lottery to succeed on dating apps. Again I’m not bitter as one of the relatively few straight male fitness instructors, it wasn’t hard to date during my first stint of singleness

        • By grigri907 2026-03-024:571 reply

          You can't whitewash your statement by saying, "neither sex is responsible for this" after you've already twice accused women of "sleeping around."

          • By drcxd 2026-03-032:08

            You miss read. The parent thread said: > the women has am easier time not to commit and just sleep around That's for women. The second time they mentioned sleep round: > Dating apps are available, statistically women all try to get into a relationship with the same 1% of men - who sleep around and cause toxicity all around. They mean the 1% of men are the ones who sleep around. Also, I think it is better to interpret "sleep around" as the state of having non-committed sex relationship with non-marital partner. It is a description of a fact rather than an accusation. Though the words may sound harsh.

        • By satisfice 2026-03-0119:18

          The rich and powerful can have all the gender roles they want. They are being phased out only among the peasants.

        • By michaelhoney 2026-03-0118:463 reply

          [flagged]

          • By collingreen 2026-03-0119:222 reply

            Perhaps there's a constructive version of this because I agree with the sentiment but it's a little harsh - dude is obviously feeling very betrayed and left out of society and either falling down the incel tunnel or doing recruiting for it.

            There's some fallacies here like "anyone not acting in stereotypical Protestant gender roles must therefore be recklessly promiscuous" and that if some people don't want to have kids with some women then therefore -nobody- will do it.

            Good luck out there everybody - the world changes in fascinating ways and it can definitely run some folks over but try not to get jaded and fall down a despair spiral.

          • By jazz9k 2026-03-0120:52

            He tried, but was rejected.

        • By shafyy 2026-03-0120:441 reply

          Your comment is incredibly misogynist and sexist. Here's a more fact-based good summary for some potential reasons for the declining fertility rate: https://ourworldindata.org/global-decline-fertility-rate

          • By ozmodiar 2026-03-0216:41

            I am both shocked and not shocked at how many people support incel garbage reasoning here.

      • By zombot 2026-03-0212:34

        Well, that's what happens when the dollar is the idol that people worship. When society collapses because of that, we will have deserved it because we worked our asses off to create the perverse incentives that led us there.

      • By ipaddr 2026-03-024:445 reply

        The answer is to remove the parents. Give birth and let the state raise the child. The parents continue to work and live childless without the costs and responsibilities. Society pays and gives this group an equal playing field.

        • By Imustaskforhelp 2026-03-029:05

          So Woman have to be pregnant for 9 months for only the state to go take the baby away.

          Are you gonna suggest that State enforces procreation too?

          This "answer" that you are saying is this close to being an Eugenics project. A govt. which has its officers arrest/detain babies because of their race and you are saying that these are the people that the babies should be left?

          5-year-old boy among four students detained by ICE, according to school leaders : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwL-OBLC7is

          Also consider these people in your answer to be the slaves of the govt. because we live in a free world and yet propaganda can be so effective. I can't imagine what the propaganda can be if State raises the child.

          Yes, Instead of trying to make the economy affordable so that childcare can be affordable, we go ahead and let the states raise our children.

          Has even the notion of affordability become so foreign that we have forgotten it can exist?

          I sincerely hope you were joking with this message and this wasn't the first thing which came into your mind.

        • By nostrademons 2026-03-025:04

          Kinda like in Brave New World, or The Giver - or, for that matter, in hundreds of orphanages in real life?

          This doesn't really work either. Having been loved by an attachment figure (usually a parent) seems to be essential to normal psychosocial development. Without it, kids can't really form bonds or groups. They never learn to trust, and without the ability to trust, they can't work in concert with other people. They end up violent and criminal.

          If you tried to do this society-wide, society would collapse. Everybody would simply try to grab what they could and kill everybody else.

        • By i_think_so 2026-03-026:09

          This is a troll, right? Ha ha? Young Anakin and Leia picnic meme?

          I think I've seen this movie and it does not have a happy ending.

        • By sam345 2026-03-025:34

          Sarcasm I'm sure.

        • By jimbokun 2026-03-025:42

          Have you ever interacted with actual Homo sapiens?

    • By thisisit 2026-03-0117:461 reply

      > Junior devs have always been useless

      > The same ethos makes sense with AI, it's just that every company is trying to avoid paying that training tax.

      Last time when a junior dev was added to my team I had a similar thought. But then talking with management I was informed that things went beyond just training.

      The company had a social responsibility pledge and understanding with the local educational institutions. They had to pledge to be part of the internship and hiring activities every year. The company could not chose to be fair weather friends and try to recruit people only when they saw fit.

      The other aspect was cost. A team made of only senior engineers was costly.

      The last aspect was leveling up. Unless the company has lots of levels the team might end up lots of engineers at the same level. And with the inverted funnel nature of promotions it meant some engineers might end up waiting years for the promotion.

      So, it was better to have teams with some junior, intermediate and experienced engineers. That way costs and promotion flows were controlled.

      Now with AI the impact might go beyond junior devs. I see even the intermediate devs being impacted. It is more likely that companies think they can replace say 1 junior + 1 intermediate with 1 junior dev with AI. Or something along those lines.

      • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0118:032 reply

        Then don’t base comp on promotions - problem solved.

        • By collingreen 2026-03-0119:251 reply

          This kind of flippant approach is equally valid as "just use ai", "let other companies train the juniors", and "don't give promotions just hire new juniors + ai". All of these have obvious problems from their overly myopic viewpoint.

        • By thisisit 2026-03-027:051 reply

          That might work for you - sure.

          But different people have different ambitions. Some might not care for comp and want to become a people manager. Decent management is aware of this "different ambition" dynamic and try to mitigate this.

          Also, this doesn't solve the problem of cost. Too many engineers without their comp based on promotions will still mean costly teams. That's why a balance of junior and senior is needed.

    • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0115:579 reply

      What’s the importance of then learning to contribute if they will probably jump ship anyway when they get good enough? Your HR department is not going to give them a market rate raise to keep them - see salary compression and inversion. A junior developer just isn’t worth the investment.

      I have never once told my manager “it would be really nice to have a few junior developers. It would really help us get this project done on time”. They do “negative work”.

      Yes not having juniors become seniors is an industry problem. But my goal is to reach my company’s quarterly and anual goals - not what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

      • By addaon 2026-03-0116:331 reply

        > I have never once told my manager “it would be really nice to have a few junior developers. It would really help us get this project done on time”. They do “negative work”.

        I have. A good junior can do in a week what a senior with domain knowledge can do in a half day, with only an hour of mentoring along the way. This isn’t a great exchange rate per dollar (juniors are cheaper than seniors, but not that much cheaper) — but seniors with domain knowledge are a finite resource, you can’t get more of them for love or money, while juniors are fresh-minted every semester. The cheapest way to shipping may not go through juniors, but the fastest way usually does; and that’s completely ignoring the HUGE side benefit of building seniors “the hard way,” which is still easier than hiring.

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0117:062 reply

          And as a senior+ with domain knowledge, with AI I can do the work of two juniors without the communication overhead + do all of the project management, dealing with stakeholders, etc.

          But you don’t build seniors, you build capable mid level ticket takers who jump for more money at the first opportunity.

          • By coffeebeqn 2026-03-0120:471 reply

            And you can actually hand things off to them: this problem is now your problem. With AIs you’re herding cats

      • By eloisant 2026-03-0116:462 reply

        Treat your employees well and they won't jump ship.

        • By samrus 2026-03-0122:14

          Its not about treating them well. The environment and culture isnt the problem. Its that tech companies have decided that they dont like giving appropriate raises to current employees. They are somehow fine with paying the same or more money to bring in an equally qualified external hire. But not with retaining people. Idk why, maybe some stupid MBA rule, mayne theres some good reason behind it

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0117:081 reply

          The problem is that (hypothetical) you as a line level manager don’t control comp and raises. Even in BigTech your manager doesn’t control your promotion and everyone knows it’s better to “boomerang” because you will get paid less being promoted to an L5 (mid) from an L4 than someone hired as an L5.

      • By dyauspitr 2026-03-0121:081 reply

        It doesn’t make sense to hire juniors at all other than as a service to society. I haven’t hired a junior in 4 years. The one I hired 4 years ago was because not only did he do reasonably well on the interview but he literally begged me because he trained himself to do it while painting houses so I saw a lot of passion in him.

        • By polynomial 2026-03-024:19

          I've hired that guy and he was a ticket grinder, well-respected by the team.

      • By estimator7292 2026-03-0116:522 reply

        This is the difference between being an engineer and being a clock puncher. You don't care about the business, you don't care about the product, you don't care about society as a whole. So long as you get your paycheck and your annual pay bump, fuck absolutely everyone and everything else, right?

        Don't worry, just leave all your problems for someone else to fix. I'm sure that won't have any lasting consequences at all.

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0117:221 reply

          I work for one reason and one reason alone - to trade 40 hours of labor for money to support my addiction to food and shelter. The company is not going to give me money for “caring about society”. They are going to give me money to meet my quarterly goals to help them meet their profit goals for the company and in a former life , to make them look good for the public market pre-IPO and at another company for an acquisition.

          I give a company 40 hours a week and all of my 30 years of industry experience and they give me money (and in a former life RSUs)

        • By xtracto 2026-03-0118:211 reply

          Sweet summer child. I was once opinionated and driven as you are now. I remember when I got out of college, I also thought like that of the mediocre clock punchers.

          Now at my 45 years, I couldn't care less for whatever grand objective the current company I work for has. I exchange my knowledge and time for hard cash, and let the owners , ceo and whatnot run with their grandiose vision.

          I only want to be left alone.

          We all get here. It's funny when we turn back.

      • By array_key_first 2026-03-0123:581 reply

        The main problem with having only seniors is that seniors have many many blindspots. Just by the nature of being there a while, they've built up hundreds of automatic processes that allow them to ignore or work around bad things at the company. In terms of code, tech, relationships, product vision, etc. It's the same reason why telling engineers to QA their own shit is a recipe for disaster. You need fresh perspective.

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-020:592 reply

          Who would better be able to see those blind spots - a junior developer with no experience or a mid level or senior developer coming in with a fresh set of eyes?

      • By samrus 2026-03-0122:112 reply

        > But my goal is to reach my company’s quarterly and anual goals - not what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

        Your benefiting from the work of peopke who did worry about what will happen 10, or even 20 30 years down the line. People like you are why the rides gonna stop

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0122:44

          So I should become a director or CxO of a company (because line level managers are powerless to do anything) so I can make those types of decisions?

          Not that I’m a line level manager - I’m just a high level IC who is at the same position on the org chart as a line level manager

        • By wonnage 2026-03-0122:401 reply

          It’s telling that OP worked at Amazon because this pretty much sums up the culture there - new grads churning through and burning out in two years while a few seniors stick around and perpetuate the cycle.

      • By coldtea 2026-03-0116:541 reply

        >What’s the importance of then learning to contribute if they will probably jump ship anyway when they get good enough? Your HR department is not going to give them a market rate raise to keep them - see salary compression and inversion.

        Obviously that hasn't historically been true, else there wouldn't be any senior developers as companies would have wised up to that and nobody would hire them as juniors.

        - Not everybody is a job hopper (even in Silicon Valley one sees that most junior FAANG devs stick around for a good while).

        - The HR department is absolutely going to give junior developers that pass the cut after a year or so a market rate raise.

        - In limited hiring periods, they'd be grateful to have the chance to stick around, while in bullish "boom" periods companies can afford to spend to keep people, expand and give them bigger roles, and so on. It's in the in-between that it becomes more problematic, but now we're in a "limited hiring" era.

        >Yes not having juniors become seniors is an industry problem. But my goal is to reach my company’s quarterly and anual goals - not what’s going to happen 10 years from now.

        That's how companies fail.

        It's also not a good strategy at the personal level. If you command more devs, you get more leverage.

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0117:192 reply

          This is not true - the average tenure for a developer across the industry has been 3 years for well over a decade.

          > The HR department is absolutely going to give junior developers that pass the cut after a year or so a market rate raise.

          This is also not true from small companies to FAANG - see “salary compression and inversion”

          > That's how companies fail.

          The company failing in the long term is really not any current employees main concern unless you are a founder if the average tenure is 3-5 years. Even the stock market doesn’t care about the long term viability of a company.

          BigTech for instance can afford dead weight. Amazon has an internship program and for those who come back or through their non traditional programs for their internal consulting division (AWS Professional Services) they have a 3 (6?) month training program.

          In ProServe at least (former employee) even for their l5/L6 employees, they have the 3 month training program - “AWSome Builder” where you simulate a customer project and have to pass.

          After leaving AWS and being hired as a staff consultant by a third party company, they put me on a plane two weeks in to meet with a customer. They don’t even hire less than senior+ people in the US.

          • By coffeebeqn 2026-03-0120:50

            If the median tenure is 3 years and the software business still is very profitable then people must be net useful within that 3 years. A lot of people also just don’t want to job hop much and honestly the interview culture keeps me from hopping more. I do still fall in the 3 years per hop but I’ve always had a good reason to- ie. layoffs, company going in a worse position than when I started, shit management at various levels, forever compounding responsibility…

          • By coldtea 2026-03-0119:401 reply

            >This is not true - the average tenure for a developer across the industry has been 3 years for well over a decade.

            That counts temps, people who weren't a good fit and were let go early after hiring, mass layoffs, and mixes mixes startups and FAANG and consulting churn, none of which is the typical corporate IT worker scenario, and all of which bring the average down (but are not "hopping").

            Corporate IT, government IT, smaller SMEs, and stable SaaS, have higher averages.

      • By hackable_sand 2026-03-0120:551 reply

        Completely misses the point of training someone

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0122:26

          So exactly what is the point for a profit seeking company to train someone except thsr you expect them to bring you more business value than they cost during their tenure?

      • By whattheheckheck 2026-03-0116:172 reply

        Welcome to capitalism. Hire seniors and pay them 400k

        • By skeledrew 2026-03-0116:211 reply

          Until there are no more "seniors"...

        • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0116:59

          Again HN bubble thinking. Most developers in the US are working at banks, airlines, insurance companies, etc in second tier cities - in the “enterprise” and are not making “$400K”. Most developers will never in their career see more than $175K inflation adjusted and I really haven’t seen comp on the top end increase in nominal terms in a decade [1] for enterprise devs.

          That leads to my second point, in second tier cities, you see comp go from around $80K —> $115K -> $150K —> $175K, junior -> mid (pull well defined tickets off a board) -> Senior (leads larger initiatives) -> Senior+.

          For instance look at what Delta airlines pays based on Atlanta.

          https://www.levels.fyi/companies/delta-air-lines/salaries

          Why hire a junior at $80K when you can poach a former junior now mid level ticket taker for $115K?

          [1] after pivoting slightly to cloud + app dev customer facing/hands on keyboard consulting, I’m at a new plateau that’s higher.

    • By elephanlemon 2026-03-0116:541 reply

      Strongly disagree with this. Bad junior devs might be useless, but I’ve seen good ones absolutely tear through features. Junior devs fresh out of school typically have tons of energy, haven’t been burned out, and are serious about wanting to get work done.

      • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0117:382 reply

        And how do they compare to what a senior dev can do with Claude Code/Codex?

        I bet you a senior could do with one good prompt to Claude what a junior would take a day to do before AI - and take time away from the senior.

        • By Blackthorn 2026-03-0122:461 reply

          Pretty favorably, because the coding agents suck.

        • By bluefirebrand 2026-03-0118:321 reply

          > I bet you a senior could do with one good prompt to Claude what a junior would take a day to do before AI

          It would still be a waste of a seniors time to write that prompt. They should have more important things to spend time on

    • By epsylon 2026-03-0123:051 reply

      > Junior devs have always been useless. You used to give them tasks that take them a week or two even though a senior engineer could do it in a couple hours, not because you wanted them to contribute, but because you wanted them to learn to contribute.

      I don't know, I've known kids who can run circles around a lot of seniors, whether it's knowledge, coding chops or just intuition. The reason a newcomer takes a week to complete a task that requires two hours is because the senior has already learn all the ins and outs of the crappy software lifetime processes (usually dealing with half broken build / code review / ticket systems)

      • By BobbyJo 2026-03-026:26

        > I don't know, I've known kids who can run circles around a lot of seniors

        Those kids are rasing 3M seed rounds to make AI tell fart jokes or something now. I'm talking about the middle 80% of new grads.

    • By lokar 2026-03-0115:591 reply

      Yep. This is why many companies have a terminal level with “up or out “ rules. Before that level you are not fully independent and require too much supervision. No one wants a Jr engineer with 10 years of experience.

      I see a lot of Sr engineers get very frustrated by how much time they have to spend helping Jr engineers. But, that’s the job, or at least a big part of it.

      Or at least it was.

      • By jfreds 2026-03-0116:382 reply

        I burnt out helping a junior on my team for the past few months. It was just terribly obvious she was feeding my responses directly into a chatbot to fix instead of actually understanding the issue. I can’t really even blame her, there isn’t much incentive to actually learn

        • By lokar 2026-03-0118:07

          I've been in situations like that. For me, it's like interviewing, I just keep backing off, lowering the bar, making it easier and easier until they can get it, then start going back up again. I pretty quickly get a confident read on where they are.

          If at that point it's clear (to me) the situation is not salvageable, it's a management issue, I've done my job.

        • By hodgesrm 2026-03-0117:572 reply

          That sounds like a bad hire, not a junior. Why didn’t your manager help fix that?

    • By sunir 2026-03-0115:541 reply

      Agreed. We are still in a capital crunch so overhiring is out of fashion. People don’t remember the early 90s or the dot.bust when the same things were said.

      Kraft 1977 Programmers and Managers talked about this if I recall. Still the best alternate take on our industry I have ever read.

      • By fdgg 2026-03-021:181 reply

        The most likely explanation for "AI layoffs" is not that AI has caused a dramatic jump in productivity - its more that managers are running out of creativity in relation to revenue-generating and cost-reducing projects and henceforth have no use for the surplus of labour. Its much easier to maximize the stock price in the short-term by riding the 'AI' wave.

        There seems to be some nonsensical belief that there exists this endless stream of positive NPV projects to take. No... reality is not like that.

        • By sunir 2026-03-0213:37

          That’s a strong point. I interpret that: Covid created needs that weren’t permanent and also caused overinvestment to address digitalization and remote life needs to support lockdown as well as predictions for a permanent change in the future. Either way a lot of the work to be done in software is done for a while.

    • By coffeebeqn 2026-03-0120:44

      I’ve had some who are useful almost out of school. The amount of tickets is always growing and have someone pick up those “when things calm down I swear I’ll address this” tickets is always helpful. If they can’t get anything done by themselves in the codebase then it gets much harder. I do also think that some people have completely forgotten all the context they didn’t have when they started off xx years ago so mentoring is not always very good

    • By Retric 2026-03-0116:101 reply

      I’ve gotten plenty of use out of junior devs. The critical bit is what makes anyone a useful worker. I’ve found anyone that’s both dedicated and meticulous is worth the investment.

      Sure there’s a wide range of skills and you can’t just hand any task to anyone and expect it to work out but some fresh collage graduates are more capable than the average person with 5 years of professional experience. At the other end you need to focus on whatever they actually are capable of doing. 40+ hours a week can slowly expand even an extremely narrow skillet as long as they’re a hard worker.

      • By raw_anon_1111 2026-03-0118:151 reply

        And have you compared the output of three junior devs to hiring one mid level ticket taker who isn’t that much more expensive + AI coding agents?

        • By Retric 2026-03-0118:211 reply

          You don’t want 3 Jr devs at the same time because of diminishing returns. Most projects have grunt work where attention to detail is important but experience doesn’t really help much. AI can quickly come up with alt text for images, but ensuring it’s actually useful for someone using a screen reader is a different story.

          1 new Jr every 2 years works quite well for a team of 7+ developers.

    • By heresie-dabord 2026-03-0116:181 reply

      > Junior devs have always been useless. You used to give them tasks [...] not because you wanted them to contribute, but because you wanted them to learn to contribute.

      Junior devs are by your own explanation not useless. They are the most important human investment in your project.

      • By BobbyJo 2026-03-026:30

        When a junior dev stops being useless, they cease being a junior dev.

    • By watwut 2026-03-0116:331 reply

      > Junior devs have always been useless. You used to give them tasks that take them a week or two even though a senior engineer could do it in a couple hours

      We havent dont it and I never seen something like that.

      • By BobbyJo 2026-03-026:321 reply

        Bummer. I was lucky enough to be that junior engineer for the first few years of my career.

        • By watwut 2026-03-028:311 reply

          I mean, our juniors were useful. Sometimes they got easier tasks, sometimes they got tasks on non-core parts of the project where the stakes were lower. I think that when they are truly just useless, they are either on the wrong project or company do something wrong.

          I was useful as a junior too.

    • By rTX5CMRXIfFG 2026-03-0116:01

      I mean, if we’re doing this, let’s be honest and go as far as mid-level engineers whose work needs constant correction, as well as the many, many senior engineers out there who are senior only because they lucked out in getting the title during the artificial dev scarcity of the ZIRP eras.

    • By dude250711 2026-03-0116:46

      > ...not because you wanted them to contribute, but because you wanted them to learn to contribute.

      Rather because you want them to go away, because management conveniently forgot to reduce your load to account for time spent on mentoring.

    • By forrestpitz 2026-03-022:02

      > Why turn a junior into a senior yourself if you can get the competition to pay for it instead.

      Reminds me a bit of the quote

      The manager says "what if I train them and they leave?" And the response is "what if you don't and they stay". Leaving unskilled and underdeveloped people in you organization is a recipe for disaster.

    • By AndrewKemendo 2026-03-0214:32

      Exactly this

      Why train a junior human when I can train a junior robot that I can copy-paste that can’t quit and has infinite margins?

    • By hinkley 2026-03-0116:33

      Why? Because I learn every time I do.

    • By threatofrain 2026-03-0117:04

      Many juniors are actually very experienced but the industry can’t see that on paper.

    • By torginus 2026-03-0118:141 reply

      I think the idea of 'junior' needs to be refined a bit. By the time I got my first job I've been coding for years, and have built rather substantial things. In fact, in terms of pure coding ability, I was probably past the initial, fast part of my growth.

      As should have others, which the university education system should have made sure.

      The fact that some people come out of 4+ years of software engineering education utterly clueless means that they somehow managed to dodge having to build anything, I think means that they will never get good at any point in time, as they either were very talented at dodging having to build things, and I don't think that talent is going to abandon them, or they couldn't really grasp the basics in an environment designed for just that.

      With that said, I think you can see for most juniors, what you can expect out of them in terms of pure coding ability - sure a lot of them have room to grow, but I've met so many great people who were very young, yet were useful from day one.

      In fact, if you have the willingness to grind away at some problem, that puts you ahead of a significant amount of the pack. I have had the misfortune of working with people who lacked any demonstrable skill, and had coping strategies for having to deal with any sort of hardship. Getting useful work out of them was a challenge in of itself.

      These people managed to get the years in to be considered senior, and are probably dispensing their wisdom 'mentoring' juniors somewhere else, and are no longer expected to actually contribute to meaningful issues.

      • By seanmcdirmid 2026-03-0118:201 reply

        I'm not sure if enthusiasts are the exception rather than the norm? I've noticed in the last few years, a lot of junior engineers do not have much active coding experience outside of their university education, they aren't the traditional "obsessed with computers and programming as kids".

        • By bluefirebrand 2026-03-0118:301 reply

          There has been a much higher demand for software developers over the past 10-15 years than there are people who are obsessed with computers and programming

          If you look at the general topic shift on HN over the years it's obvious most people are getting into tech because they want power and money, not for love of tech

    • By bdangubic 2026-03-0117:141 reply

      everyone was junior at one point, everyone. “junior” is just age mate, just age…

      • By BobbyJo 2026-03-026:33

        I meant junior in terms of experience, not age, the two are just very strongly correlated for obvious reasons.

    • By xorgun 2026-03-0115:48

      [dead]

  • By recursivedoubts 2026-03-0115:2112 reply

    As I tell my students: juniors, you must write the code

    https://htmx.org/essays/yes-and/

    Everyone else: we must let the juniors write the code.

    Seniors come from juniors. If you want seniors, you must let the juniors write the code.

    • By rco8786 2026-03-0115:331 reply

      > Seniors come from juniors. If you want seniors, you must let the juniors write the code

      The average tenure of a person in engineering role is so short that very few employers are thinking about developing individuals anymore.

      The actual way this gets approached is "If you want seniors, you must hire seniors".

      I'm not sure how this plays out now. But it's easy to imagine a scenario like the COBOL writers of the last generation.

      • By voxl 2026-03-0118:241 reply

        It's a self inflicted wound. Companies do not reward loyalty. They do not give out raises congruent with what you can find if you leave. Business-types unirionically think seasonal layoffs is a "good thing." Self hemorrhaging your institutional knowledge is insanity

    • By Thanemate 2026-03-0115:291 reply

      The issue stems from 2 things:

      1) People hearing "an LLM is as smart as a junior" and actually opting for the LLM subscription price instead of hiring a junior

      2) The gap between senior and junior in terms of performance has become larger, since the senior devs had their hands get dirty for years typing stuff out manually AND also tackling challenges.

      This generation of junior-mid developers will have a significant portion of the "typing stuff" chopped off, and we're still pretending that this will end up being fine.

      • By jnwatson 2026-03-0117:121 reply

        I think your second point is interesting, and it has actually already happened a couple of times.

        It used to be a lot easier to find devs that knew assembly and could navigate call stacks through memory by hand because a lot of folks had to learn that to get their job done. Now higher level languages have mostly eliminated that level of operation.

        The same applies to infosec roles. It is 10x harder for junior infosec folks than 20 years ago because there are a bunch of skills you need in infosec that today's mainline dev experience doesn't need, but were more common a while ago.

        Case in point, I remember working with a partner company's junior engineer on some integration. They needed some hard-coded constant changed and time was of the essence. I told them to change a couple bytes in the elf binary directly. They looked at me like I was a wizard. I thought it was a fairly pedestrian skill having grown up reversing computer game save files.

        • By mycall 2026-03-0122:56

          Hex editors are a black box to most 99% devs these days. I noticed their use falling off once code-signing came into use.

    • By smallstepforman 2026-03-0116:16

      The challenge is to get cost sensitive businesses to support this. Juniors are a cost and when trained move on, thats the fundamental problem. Retention only works with smart companues, for most other companies its a revolving door.

      On the plus side, as a dev with 30+ years of experience, I am commanding a very good contract salary these days. Revolving door companies stuck in process hell and product rot, and cannot deliver new value, so they’re scrambling to find experienced devs that cost a premium. My salary today makes up for peanuts at the start of my career.

    • By matt_heimer 2026-03-0115:571 reply

      The real question will be; Do we need to pay the juniors to write code to become seniors?

      If coding is an art then all the juniors will end up in the same places as other struggling artists and only the breakout artists will land paying coding gigs.

      I'm sitting here on a weekend coding a passion project for no pay so I have to wonder.

      • By whattheheckheck 2026-03-0116:18

        So non technical business people will hire vibe coded seniors?

    • By moomoo11 2026-03-0115:35

      Ok but even pre ai I felt like each years interns wanted to take as many shortcuts as possible and not learn.

      I think the allure of high TC (150k base or more for entry level) led to many non engineer brained people to enter tech.

      Many people can do rote memorization, it’s even ingrained heavily in some cultures iykyk. However they can’t come up with much original or out of the box thinking.

    • By Tharre 2026-03-0115:481 reply

      > Seniors come from juniors. If you want seniors, you must let the juniors write the code.

      Companies know this as well, but this is a prisoner dilemma type situation for them. A company can skip out on juniors, and instead offer to pay seniors a bit better to poach them from other companies, saving money. If everyone starts doing this, everyone obviously loses - there just won't be enough new seniors to satisfy demand. Avoiding this requires that most companies play by the rules so to say, not something that's easily achieved.

      And the higher the cost of training juniors relative to their economic output, the greater the incentive to break the rules becomes.

      One alternative might just be more strict non-competes and the like, to make it harder for employees to switch companies in the first place. But this is legally challenging and obviously not a great thing for employees in general.

      • By fluidcruft 2026-03-0115:552 reply

        The way other professions do this is by burying trainees with debt and then writing off debt if they stay.

    • By sunir 2026-03-0115:55

      Not every career path starts at a software first company. Not every software first company works on the most intense codebase.

      And therefore in my experience not every senior engineer would hack it as a senior engineer at a more intense company myself included.

      This isn’t a software unique experience. It’s life.

    • By PetoU 2026-03-0115:38

      before you had a lesson that every engineer has to start with writing C, yet most of modern devs never did.

      Seniors should be prepared that Seniority will mean different thing and path of getting there will be different too.

      Just like there was a shift from lower lvl languages to high level

    • By dahart 2026-03-0115:44

      It’s already getting harder to find juniors willing to write the code and harder to discern whether someone is as willing as they say. And I feel like asking junior to make this decision and just have self control is a tricky double edged sword. Even if I want them to (and I do!) the competitive and ambitious juniors I suspect will still lean into AI code gen heavily as it makes them look better and seem more productive. Seniors probably need to do more than let them write the code, we probably need to figure out ways to encourage, require, or even enforce it at some level, if we want it to happen.

    • By xnx 2026-03-0414:59

      > If you want seniors, you must let the juniors write the code.

      I have my doubts. One way to think about AI is another layer of abstraction on top of computer languages. Many good application developers never learn the layers one or two down the existing abstraction stack (assembly, etc.).

    • By wolttam 2026-03-0115:331 reply

      I agree with the sentiments here. But, I’m less hopeful about the presented solutions.

      I think my argument against humans still needing to know how to manage complexity, is that the models will become increasingly able to manage that complexity themselves.

      The only thing that backs up that argument is the rate of progress the models have made in the last 3 years (ChatGPT turned 3 just 3 months ago)

      I think software people as a whole need to see that the capabilities won’t stop here, they’re going to keep growing. If you can describe it, an LLM will eventually be able to do it.

      • By mistrial9 2026-03-0122:00

        disagree because when the "super fast" new CPUs of 20 years ago became common, it was easy to write code that executed slower than previous code, due to language constructs and wasteful work patterns. Therefore, I predict that LLM code can explode in complexity (14KLOC for a binary file parser with some features) but that compute will bog down and effort to understand will explode.. that is, in extreme cases.

    • By dude250711 2026-03-0116:48

      > If you want seniors, you must let the juniors write the code.

      I do not want more juniors, because given time they will be my competition.

HackerNews