> "The prediction was that software engineers would lose their jobs first, and the recent trend went the other way: demand for software engineers is higher than ever"
Hard to take anything the author says seriously making nonsensical claims like this. The software engineering job market has been getting worse every year since 2022 by virtually every metric. This is especially true at the entry and mid level. For example, computer engineering and computer science majors now have the #2 and #4 highest unemployment rates amongst recent graduates [1]
Students are smart to be cautious about the future, and it's annoying that adults with no skin in the game so flippantly dismiss these concerns without any data to back it up.
The market rebound appears to be mostly in senior roles [1] while everyone else are falling out of favor including new grads. Definitely puts the "higher than ever" claim in question. Indeed is looking at job postings data and I personally think this is a poor unit of measure. In my humble opinion the market isn't anywhere near where it used to be even several years prior to the pandemic.
Even before AI we were trending toward an economy with very few entry level jobs anywhere. AI is supercharging this, and I can easily now imagine a future where there's basically zero (good) jobs for anyone who isn't an expert.
So how do we get the next generation of senior professionals then?
This, I think, is a civilization-scale problem we will need to confront in the next 20-ish years.
I doubt that (depending on what "senior" means).
The skills to drive AI are much the same as they were for business analysts in the old days. Domain knowledge, insight into user requirements, knowledge of modern UI paradigms, ability to write detailed, consistent requirements docs/ design docs.
There is a deep bench in the industry of these senior-ish people. Many have left to become baristas, dive instructors or hobby farmers, scarred by the pain of building large complex software systems using human labour and absurd Agile rituals. But they could slot straight back in, it's like riding a bike.
AI development is the new waterfall. Its just that the lower level that the BA hands off to, which used to be roomfuls of devs, is now a superhuman who can implement those designs at lighting speed and come back hungrily for more.
But if by senior you mean someone who is just a junior with more experience, someone who's not really in touch with the business's needs and who just works off stuff fed to them by PMs or the like - then yeah, agreed.
Another thing is that orgs will want to keep around somebody who 1) can be held responsible when things go wrong 2) has a reasonable understanding of the system that's their domain end-to-end 3) can reliably diagnose failures and fix them, regardless of how the code was written.
That's not a role that can reasonably be filled by a junior and management armed with agents doesn't really fit either.
> But they could slot straight back in, it's like riding a bike.
Yeah, not quite. There's a ton to learn about how to control an LLM while it's writing code, and even more to learn about how to manage a set of agents.
9 months ago I was comparing it to running a dev team, but now it has changed and there are practices and processes that are unique to managing agents.
e.g. a team of software devs have the self-awareness to not take a single marginally-relevant point in a spec document and spend 20% of their team effort to build an entire subsystem to meet it without checking. The process and rituals that we used to use to make sure that a software dev team was making progress and would hit the project deadline are now largely useless, but we need new ones to make sure the agents are not heading off into unnecessary rabbit holes.
I'm not saying those ex-seniors would not be able to get back in the saddle. I'm just saying there's been more change in the last 9 months than there has in the last 30 years, so it may take a period of adjustment.
But I don't think the things that burned them out before will have changed. Dealing with non-tech executives was always the worst part of the job, and LLMs can't help with that, and are even making it worse ("ChatGPT says this should only take a couple a hours and you're using Typescript instead of Go! Why? Fix it!").
> There's a ton to learn about how to control an LLM while it's writing code, and even more to learn about how to manage a set of agents.
So? The experts have a only few months of experience anyway, gained the slow way (via experimentation). It's not like someone can't pick up those skills in a week.
The "a ton to learn about how to control an LLM" is remarkably similar to learning how to work with a new team of humans, perhaps easier. LLMs though eccentric are far more predictable than most humans.
What I love most about AI development is the lack of pushback when you see a completed new feature, realise it was a dumb idea and just pivot hard to something different.
A human would (rightfully) call you out for wasting time and resources. AI slurps up your feedback and dives in again with the same vigour.
JSavageOne · · focus · HN ↗
Hard to take anything the author says seriously making nonsensical claims like this. The software engineering job market has been getting worse every year since 2022 by virtually every metric. This is especially true at the entry and mid level. For example, computer engineering and computer science majors now have the #2 and #4 highest unemployment rates amongst recent graduates [1]
Students are smart to be cautious about the future, and it's annoying that adults with no skin in the game so flippantly dismiss these concerns without any data to back it up.
[1] <a href="https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market?utm_source=chatgpt.com#--:explore:outcomes-by-major" rel="nofollow">https://www.newyorkfed.org/research/college-labor-market?utm...
sakopov · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://hiringlab.indeed.com/2026/07/08/ai-and-job-postings-from-destruction-to-creation/" rel="nofollow">https://hiringlab.indeed.com/2026/07/08/ai-and-job-postings-...
api · · focus · HN ↗
So how do we get the next generation of senior professionals then?
This, I think, is a civilization-scale problem we will need to confront in the next 20-ish years.
jacquesm · · focus · HN ↗
beachy · · focus · HN ↗
The skills to drive AI are much the same as they were for business analysts in the old days. Domain knowledge, insight into user requirements, knowledge of modern UI paradigms, ability to write detailed, consistent requirements docs/ design docs.
There is a deep bench in the industry of these senior-ish people. Many have left to become baristas, dive instructors or hobby farmers, scarred by the pain of building large complex software systems using human labour and absurd Agile rituals. But they could slot straight back in, it's like riding a bike.
AI development is the new waterfall. Its just that the lower level that the BA hands off to, which used to be roomfuls of devs, is now a superhuman who can implement those designs at lighting speed and come back hungrily for more.
But if by senior you mean someone who is just a junior with more experience, someone who's not really in touch with the business's needs and who just works off stuff fed to them by PMs or the like - then yeah, agreed.
cosmic_cheese · · focus · HN ↗
That's not a role that can reasonably be filled by a junior and management armed with agents doesn't really fit either.
marcus_holmes · · focus · HN ↗
Yeah, not quite. There's a ton to learn about how to control an LLM while it's writing code, and even more to learn about how to manage a set of agents.
9 months ago I was comparing it to running a dev team, but now it has changed and there are practices and processes that are unique to managing agents.
e.g. a team of software devs have the self-awareness to not take a single marginally-relevant point in a spec document and spend 20% of their team effort to build an entire subsystem to meet it without checking. The process and rituals that we used to use to make sure that a software dev team was making progress and would hit the project deadline are now largely useless, but we need new ones to make sure the agents are not heading off into unnecessary rabbit holes.
I'm not saying those ex-seniors would not be able to get back in the saddle. I'm just saying there's been more change in the last 9 months than there has in the last 30 years, so it may take a period of adjustment.
But I don't think the things that burned them out before will have changed. Dealing with non-tech executives was always the worst part of the job, and LLMs can't help with that, and are even making it worse ("ChatGPT says this should only take a couple a hours and you're using Typescript instead of Go! Why? Fix it!").
lelanthran · · focus · HN ↗
So? The experts have a only few months of experience anyway, gained the slow way (via experimentation). It's not like someone can't pick up those skills in a week.
marcus_holmes · · focus · HN ↗
Ferret7446 · · focus · HN ↗
beachy · · focus · HN ↗
A human would (rightfully) call you out for wasting time and resources. AI slurps up your feedback and dives in again with the same vigour.