Just an fyi since my poli sci prof would bring this up whenever it was mentioned: Trump cannot unilaterally cancel elections. They are run by the states.
Is there much of substance to this article? It mostly seems doomerism and conjecture.
clutching the rule book screaming "A dog can't play basketball!" as AirBud scores again and again doesn't really matter if no one actually takes the dog out of the game
The huge apps that my coworkers build out with minimal human input makes me scared to be a web dev in this environment. Just way too much can get automated.
Yeah completely unmaintainable code that cant handle more than 1k users before it collapses on itself. And quite probably so ugly its literally impossible to use.
That only matters if you need to support 1k users. Tons of software doesn't and if you can spit out a web app in a few hours a lot of companies are going to do that.
I'm sure there is still a pot for really high quality stuff but it's a tradeoff a lot of companies don't care. But the interfaces - they aren't ugly, they're very usable and complete, which is the main reason I think web dev is in trouble. It'd take me 10x the time to do it myself.
Simple web apps, the kind you're describing have never been difficult, they were never what kept SWEs employed.
I'm not even sure what you're talking about when you say "web apps", because the kind of "web apps" that have kept SWEs employed are created by large organizations that have large requirements. You sound like you don't know what you're talking about. Companies also aren't going to just stop growing, iterating and improving, which requires expertise. Im worth more than ever with AI, my value as a SWE has only been increasing.
You people seriously need to stop using LLMs because your brains are devolving like taxi cabs drivers who had parts of their brains responsible for navigation atrophy after the advent of GPS.
> Simple web apps, the kind you're describing have never been difficult, they were never what kept SWEs employed.
I'd say the first part is right but the second part is statistically incorrect. I would even expand from "web-apps" to just about any kind of software, especially "business software" -- very little of it was ever too difficult.
Now the following will clearly not be true for all cases, and the boundaries are very fuzzy, but generally a huge part of software development has always been the relatively straightforward translation of high-level requirements into code. Crafting the high-level requirements was typically the challenging part, but that typically was done by the more senior devs / architects, whereas the actual implementation was done by more junior / mid-level engineers. And there were typically multiple junior / mid-level devs for every senior dev, say 3:1 or more. As such, it is correct to say that the simpler aspects of software development were what kept most SWEs employed.
Now AI has completely usurped the lower-level coding work. You as an expert dev are definitely getting worth more than ever with AI, but that's because you single-handedly can now do what an entire team used to do. You may even get paid much more, but that is eventually going to be at the expense of a bunch of other people who are not required anymore.
This is why people are seeing "jobs apocalypse" written on the wall.
I don't get why you're being so rude. What's the point?
For the record, I hardly use these models. I've simply seen that they can replace existing web apps. That hurts the market for web devs, most orgs aren't building out large apps they are building out smallish ones and generative models do that today.
Sorry, Ive been hearing these exact same arguments for 3 years now and its always extermely divorced from reality. Its starting to get very tiring, its hard not to be rude at a certain point.
Don't go around telling people their careers are in peril when you clearly have no clue what you're talking about. What do you expect?
You've identified a very specific type of web dev, one that works on perf critical apps in a corp environment and said corp cares about perf and quality. Tons of people simply don't work in those environments and unfortunately this threatens their career.
I work in an environment where we can vibecode 4/5 of our web apps because they are either small enough or the perf doesn't matter. Or, I've looked under the hood and these are writing endpoints that would take me 3x the amount of time it would take it to use the same libraries. You say it's divorced from reality, I'm saying it's just what I've directly observed.
I'm glad it doesn't affect you, but you don't have any kind of statistical measurement (nor do I) to know how much of the market this impacts. I do know for a lot of the web dev I did pereviously, I could do it viea these models today.
My uncle is a skilled immigrant to Canada (electrical engineer) and was never able to find an engineering job. They live in an immigrant-heavy subsidized housing neighborhood full of people in the same situation.
Plus one. My parents experience as well in Montreal. My dad could not understand why Canada bothered to move him and his family and the keep him on welfare. BTW - life on welfare in Canada was 5 times better than life as an electrical engineer in România. My parents never stopped thinking it was a really good idea to migrate to Canada.
The big problem is that when issuing immigrant visas, the Canadian government uses a point system (age, degree, etc.) that never actually checks for employability. In other words, it doesn't ask, "Is someone willing to pay Canadian wages for these skills and credentials?"
The federal government will give extra points to an applicant with an engineering degree without ever bothering to check whether the immigrant's degree would be accepted by an accredited licensing board.
In some cases, it's possible to get accredited by passing a series of exams (the same ones given to 22-year-old new grads). Figuring out why the pass rates are so low for foreign applicants without a mutually recognized degree is left as an exercise for the reader...
I know it's not exactly the same. But would he consider becoming an electrician? Trade jobs are definitely getting more and more in demand, and the pay once established is definitely not worse than most engineer positions. Electricians in major canadian areas (e.g. Vancouver) charge 200$ per hour and more.
He tutors math and science, my aunt (who also has a graduate degree) works in a daycare. Canadian welfare is also quite generous.
Their son is doing well, but I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point. It boils down to a circuitous and expensive way to direct government dollars to smart people who are likely to have smart kids. You could save yourself a step and just give lower income kids in Canada IQ tests and throw money at the promising ones.
The US says they don't want them, the point of the article is the new visa requirements (surprise) aren't converting into hiring US citizens but instead pushing the roles offshore.
Well yes, what difference does it make to bring people over to the US vs them doing the work overseas?
Bringing people over has negative consequences in the US (housing demand goes up; water demand goes up; power demand goes up) and in the person's home country (money doesn't flow to the local country; good people leave who should be staying and building their own country).
Skilled is a subset of what the US gets, and that at the detriment to local workers (and to the countries the skilled immigrants originate from). Though to the local business owner's they're great - much cheaper.
the candidate for Canadian PR has to secure a job offer beforehand, so the Canada's plan is that US tech workers move their US jobs to Canada, and big tech employers expand their existing tech offices in Canada, rather than being forced to shell out $100k to Donny.
Why should US employers be forced to pay $100k to Donny or compromise for substandard smaller labor pool in the US and bear increased costs?
Put another way: why should American employers be forced to hire Americans? If the labor pool is indeed substandard, they arguably have a vested interest in improving the quality of that labor pool rather than simply giving up on it. The $100k (and its consequences) are putting a finger on the scale in a nationalist manner to prefer local products. It's tariffs for people.
It comes down to whether you have a globalist or nationalist mindset. Depending on which, you will come to a different conclusion about what to think. Should a government prioritize the individual success of citizens of its country, or the profitability of companies domiciled there (and therefore overall national economic performance)? Which approach, which tide lifts more boats by a meaningful amount? Which comports with a government's stated duties?
Employers have only one job: to maximize profits, thats it. It is not employers' fault that US is unable to train tech workers, despite spending $30-40k per pupil in school system only to end up #27 in PISA ranking.
The problem with all anti-H1B discourse is Lump Of Labor fallacy ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy ). The loudest people are the least educated about the consequences of blocking high skilled immigration.
>Employers have only one job: to maximize profits, thats it.
This is wrong. In practice, we bias toward this rule because it happens to align with benefit to society moreso than other rules (most of the time), but it is not the end, it is the means. The responsibility of employers (and all people participating in society) is to jointly maintain, and ideally improve, society. That's part of why government exists - to control harm-doers.
Also, "the loudest people are the least educated" is probably true on most topics, but it's not a great way to make an argument. You should address the smartest people who disagree with you, not the dumbest (and that way, you also avoid being perceived as believing you are better than other people, which damns so much socially-bisected discourse at scale).
there is no smart argument to ban H1B. Its all pure jingoism and racism. There is really nothing else here.
The fact that America is global tech leader is thanks to foreigners, all these FAANGs and MAG7s and OpenAI and Anthropic, the paper "Transformers is all your need", everything was created by highly skilled foreigners.
Without foreigners there is no tech sector, no sweet MAG7 and FAANG stock returns, America would be steamrolled in tech the same way Ford, Chevrolet, Buick, and Dodge were steamrolled by Toyota and BMW.
You dont know jack shit about how arbitrary the USCIS asjudication process is, thats first. Please dont ever comment on visa and paperwork matters, unless you went through that hell yourself.
Second, this admin (steven miller et al) and loud wignats supporting it, want to shutdown all immigration completely, starting with high skilled one.
So please lets stop pretending that wignats will accept any immigration. Just say you sont want brown people, and that will be honest at least.
A lot of H1Bs are more qualified than the O-1 just because its easier to get coming from top tier Ivy League school and phd
This is a genuinely depressing position to see on HN - the one place left on the internet I will willingly engage with. Not everybody who disagrees with you on policy is simply a racist. You are being uncharitable, and leaning on the drug of "all my enemies are stupid". Everybody is stupid. I'm stupid, you are stupid. Expertise is a fallacious bar for normal discourse. Honesty and curiosity are what actually constitute "smartness" - not knowledge.
Smart people are not arguing that we should have zero immigration forever. They are arguing that H1B should be reformed or replaced (e.g. with O-1, or something else), which, yes, is synonymous with destroying it in its current form. And they are arguing that offshoring should be punished unless actually necessary. This does not conflict with the historical case studies you are using as dramatic rhetorical example.
Maybe the people you are disagreeing with are wrong - you could simply argue that. But you are making a different argument. It's going to be very hard to convince Americans that Americans should not be protected by America, and that everybody suffering is just a stupid racist idiot who should accept what is happening to their homes and livelihoods instead of trying to comprehend solutions.
re "historical case studies you are using as dramatic rhetorical example":
It is very easy to undermine American big tech. If tomorrow China comes up with cheaper version of American tech products it will be over. Same way TikTok took over social media, same way DeepSeek can undermine openai/anthropic, and any other random SAAS can undermine existing american SAAS, because American salaries are 2x-4x compared to other countries. The moment America experiences reverse brain drain and alternative tech hubs are established, they can undercut prices with the same quality. So do not take it for granted that America will be tech leader forever, the global immigration is the only thing that keeps the leadership and drains other countries of top talent.
Immigration must be legislated by Congress, it is their job. GOP controlled the congress during trump1 and trump2 and decided not do anything. Superior Court mostly decided to maintain the status quo.
I am for reasonable and thoughtful reform of immigration, that should be done by Congress. Current admin has zero capability and no interest to pursue bona-fide reform.
All they want is throw defenseless foreigners under the bus and draw blood of innocent people for a big show, all while stealing money for themselves. and GOP voting base has no interest in keeping the people in power in check and demand accountability.
This is why I am firmly against the current admin using administrative procedures to halt immigration via backdoors like "$100k admin fee". Let's be honest here - nobody is interested in recouping admin costs of adjudicating immigration paperwork. They are simply using $100k to stop it.
The authority for stopping/reforming immigration lies firmly with Congress.
Economics is generally not a zero sum game. At least according to what they taught me in Econ 101, on a macroeconomic scale skilled workers tend to increase job availability. They spend a larger portion of their income on services, which has a positive multiplier effect.
> skilled workers tend to increase job availability
Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down.
> Who'd imagine squeezing the middle class would backfire epically? Compensation hasn't reflected the GDP per capital increases for the majority of the workforce. I don't think even the productivity increases from personal computers in the end of the 1970's have trickled down.
Why would investments by employers result in higher compensation for employees?
Most of the 'squeeze' comes from things like housing and health care. The former driven by NIMBYs pulling the ladder up after them in so many desirable places.
The subcategory of NIMBY hate regarding overdevelopment of existing communities (as opposed to things like datacenters, multi-home owners concerned about investment, etc etc) is mostly hatred of the average citizen, which is not a great category of people to decide to hate. 90% of people would react the same ways in the same situations.
The obvious problem is that you can only develop a "desirable" area so much before you have fundamentally altered it. When there is a perception that the demand is driven in large part by people moving into the country, rather than by being born, that naturally engenders bitterness. When there is a perception that there are plenty of other areas available for development, which would then become desirable over time, but the developers want money and the government is focused on short-term goals, that further engenders bitterness. This is all very natural, and doesn't necessitate people to be unreasonably NIMBY to oppose it. Again, most people would.
It's not hate, it's just something that changed in the US in about the 1970ies. In the past, you'd have a booming area and people would build homes as a result and things weren't perfect, but kind of balanced out in terms of housing.
A huge amount of housing demand comes from immigration. You can't call people who like their neighbourhoods "NIMBYs" for not wanting their nice area to triple in population to solve a problem. They aren't the problem. The demand is the problem.
So lack of supply isn't the problem, it's the people who want a place to live who are the problem? Would you make this same argument if the increased demand was from people being born rather than immigration (because it is both)?
I think if you want to be able to block your neighbors from building denser housing on their property then that should only be enforceable if it was agreed to by everybody in advance when they bought the place (e.g. via an HOA contract or some similar type of restriction on the property deed). Otherwise this is tantamount to allowing Walmart to get a vote on whether to allow Target to set up next door.
> So lack of supply isn't the problem, it's the people who want a place to live who are the problem? Would you make this same argument if the increased demand was from people being born rather than immigration (because it is both)?
I totally agree it's both, although most first world populations have low birth rates (until you add in generational immigration from high birth rate cultures), so slow building works well.
Actually you can blame them because it was the done thing throughout US history to build more homes when people moved to an area. And there is nothing more American than moving to a place with better opportunities or amenities. "The pursuit of happiness" and all that.
Actual immigration from outside the US is a vanishingly small part of our housing problems, just as immigrants do not actually "eat the cats and dogs".
Where I live in Oregon the conflict is almost entirely about other Americans moving here vs those pulling up the ladder - which doesn't, of course,stop anyone from moving here, it just means only the wealthy can, rather than teachers, nurses, firefighters and so on.
>immigrants do not actually "eat the cats and dogs"
This is a pretty stark straw man. It's very normal to be critical of immigration policy without believing that immigrants will eat your pets, and it's petty to try to implicitly cast the person you're talking to into that camp.
This is true in the literal sense in which you are using the phrase, but the context is not realistic. This sentiment is used a lot in defense of bad policy.
Economics is a zero sum game, just not a static one. People are variables in the equation, which makes it non-trivial (after all, people are the entities splitting the sum, which is normally not part of the system of a "zero sum game").
The point is that the implication that "more people === better" is an oversimplification, to be point of being meaningless. In some contexts, more people makes everything better for everybody. In some contexts, more people makes everything worse for everybody. In most contexts, it's somewhere in between. Where the sparks really fly is when more people makes things better for the new people and worse for the existing people.
It's really dismaying how many people on this site seem to think immigration and the job market are a zero sum game... and that hasn't changed 12 years after I wrote this:
It's an oversimplification to portray the "other argument" as asserting that everything in society is strictly a zero-sum game. In some important ways, it is; and in some important ways, it isn't. People may be wrong about those details, but that's not the same thing as the common quip "it's not a zero-sum game", which essentially portrays the other side of the argument as dunderheads (a trap that well-meaning people who believe they are on the "right" or "moral" side of an argument very easily fall into).
I.e. no, it's not a zero sum game, but it is a complex system with inputs, outputs, some finite resources, and lots of human subjectivity and desires. Concrete harm easily comes from bad immigration policy (regardless of the "direction" of the policy's badness).
Is it possible to jump into this with a background as a senior dev or is it too late? I don't know where to get started, would you just look like a junior or entry level candidate by doing that?
We hire “AI engineers,” and honestly the expectation most of the time is that they can demonstrate an actual interest and real work in or with AI. Mind you, we are not a frontier lab, but AI gaming company, and someone with senior dev knowledge is hugely valuable to the team if they actually have rolled up their sleeves and built with AI and push to improve our operations with AI. There isn’t an academic signal that would tell us you are really AI forward, and so much of the engineering job is super charged by having a real dev background for us.
I can’t say if this will change of course, and I only speak for a small gaming startup.
>Given the backlash amongst gamers against AI, how does being an “AI gaming” company work?
They are delusional or know nothing about how development works. I can promise you there's not a single major game studio left out there not leveraging AI in significant parts of their workflows at this point.
AI helps the most with boilerplate work: Those 3 hours of boring, follow-the-design coding can now be implemented in 5-10 minutes. I then jump into the more interesting work and cleanup.
Other things are easier. For example, saying "Refactor this class to use XYZ serialization library" and having it done in 5 minutes instead of 90 minutes frees me to do the more intellectually stimulating work.
Likewise, when it comes to AI and design, what I can do is type in ideas in a stream-of-conscious way into a prompt, and then it looks at code and comes out with sane text that I can go edit.
BUT: There's interesting things you can do with AI that are harder to do by hand. I ran an experiment where I asked AI to rewrite a method to not use an ORM, which is useful if you need to optimize some DB code. Shopify is having AI write two native versions of their mobile app instead of maintaining a React Native codebase. Lean on the tool to do interesting things that otherwise are too labor intense to do by hand.
---
Don't be like the guy who rejects an IDE, or the guy who only works in assembly.
I didn't say LLMs are not useful. It makes some of the boring parts easy and less time consuming. But it does not add it to what makes building something rewarding, on its own.
Imagine building LEGO using a robot? Where is the fun in that?
You can use it at different levels of granularity to fit your needs. I find a lot of the fun in designing the way the code interacts and class/module boundaries and responsibilities. So AI takes away the typing (code) part and makes it more fun at times. It give me more time to focus my thoughts.
It (focusing on the design) is about as fun as taking part in the 4 days specification/planning marathon with a team whose super intelligent members cannot comprehend trivialities and nitpicking is needed, as they really like to code and cv-boosting coding and engineering. and are willing to go large lengths to do any overengineered over-complicated contraption that slightly resembles the solution. Exhausting. At least I can yell at the AI without negative consequences. For now.
most eng roles at frontier companies don't require prior experience specifically with AI, there's a ton of regular engineering work required to train / serve models
Absolutely; I'd check out AI Engineering by Chip Huyen to get a fundamental understanding of the space and do a couple of side projects in the area to get familiar and be able to speak to the nuances of working with LLMs, and that will be enough to start working to transition and apply for relevant roles.
It’s for sure not too late, why would it be? The industry is young and evolving. It’s not even clear what an AI job is exactly, the definition and job titles have been changing a lot
Maybe - as with most ultra competitive industries you either know someone or have some extremely niche yet hyper productive knowledge others don’t have.
I have multiple Senior AI Engineer roles posted (really, senior / staff SWE who has reps and sets using AI for development, perhaps working with AI infra) right now. Right now it's a lot of getting Claude working well, model routing working well, and getting us off of commercial LLMs. Trying desperately to hire, but get a lot of "AI-pilled" non-developers in the same way I would open SWE roles ten years ago and get constant "Software Bootcamp" grads. These roles exist, in my anecdotal experience of having multiple of these roles open on my team lol. Perhaps this is just 1/100 ads, or 1/1000.
how do you interview for those? I think interviewing has not kept up with how things are, leetcode rounds seem to make even less sense nowadays and feel even more of a hazing ritual.
Personally seeing an "AI engineer" job posting I would not even apply, despite having many years experience in general, and experimenting/running models on my own hardware and being responsible at work for several skills, mcp and so on, it just feels that that kind of job is looking for some ex-openai/anthropic/ai-lab kind of skillset, which is not something a lot of people have; if this is what you are looking for of course it is what it is.
I think these days being "AI conversant" should be expected for senior/staff positions, it can also be listed a requirement, but not sure putting it as a job title, it feels more like having "IDE staff software engineer" which is not something anybody outside of jetbrains/vs.code would do.
sounds fun, I had fun fine-tuning some open weights models for local use, and I run a free public inference engine here: https://stateofutopia.com/services/ai/ it's fun.
> The most common side effects reported by patients in the study by Hu et al1 of 401 outpatients taking SSRIs were drowsiness (38%), dry mouth (34%), and sexual dysfunction (34%)
> which was conducted in 1999-2000, questioned patients about side effects via phone interviews within 75 to 105 days of starting antidepressant therapy. The side effects deemed most bothersome were sexual dysfunction (17%)
Just because one study has the number 34% in it, does not prove the numbers I gave were wrong and does not mean they are anecdotal.
This is something that’s been studied from many angles and there’s more than one number that’s defensible based on the context and dataset.
For example, even the study you cited says:
“In a study of 344 patients by Montejo-Gonzalez et al, 58% of patients reported sexual dysfunction when physicians directly inquired”, and “14% with spontaneous reporting”.
Do you think the one 25 year old short-term study that you found by yourself is the only study that has been done, and that anything that deviates from it is a distortion?
> In both research and clinical contexts, an important challenge is presented by the phenomenological overlap between side effects and residual symptoms of depression. Thus, fatigue, cognitive impairment, apathy, jitteriness and irritability, and sleep and appetite changes are core features of depression, but may also be related to antidepressant, treatment. In a small study of 43 depressed inpatients,6 which investigated the rate of somatic symptoms and complaints that were present before and after treatment, many symptoms often considered to be side effects of drugs were also present prior to treatment, including dry mouth, lightheadedness, sweating, tremors, and constipation. The distinction between residual symptoms and side effects is crucial, as they call for very different responses.
Sure. I always find the more extremist responses (you can find some towards the bottom) confusing because the only side effect I've ever been aware of is not wanting to die.
I just think there's a lot of fud around this and I have friends who have never taken them that were very ready to jump in on the discussion about how they destroy lives.
It's cool that you have not encountered any issues but especially birth control pills are also no smarties but many use them as they were candy.
In my personal circle I only new of a single woman who had no issues. The majority had all flowers off issues. During and afterwards. No most of the time it got downplayed or simply ignored but doctors and society a like.
I'm personally glad that birth control pills are not longer sold as a wonder pill because many woman suffered needlessly and the worst part is that many did not knew that is was the pill in the first place.
I already answered why, it's chemistry. Everyone has side effects, not everyone notices them. You can not introduce a medication, or any substance for that matter, into the human body that does not have any side effects — it's impossible.
Normally when people say side effects they mean things that you can actually observe. Hence your earlier point about going off the meds and noticing a difference. If I don't notice any difference other than I don't think your point really stands.
> In the US you meet with one for 15m, get prescribed a cocktail of drugs, a few months later you report if it worked, and if not they'll up the dose or play around with the cocktail. I don't know how we call that stuff science.
Is that not science? It's on a small scale but this is all they have to work on. We don't understand enough, it is all trial and error.
I note that not all psychs operate this way, mine would not give me a perscription until several visits in.
Well, it's science if you consider the patient to be the subject of an experiment. But the point I was trying to make is - they don't directly measure serotonin or anything else in the brain. They can't see thoughts through a machine or measure 'chemical balance', whatever that is. They leave it to correlation - give drug, report result given by patient. It's like nutritional science, but even worse, because at least with nutritional science you can measure blood sugar or cholesterol. Psychology involves the outside world - relationships, financial security, social stresses, physical health, etc. Habits of mind. Traumas. So much more.
Is there much of substance to this article? It mostly seems doomerism and conjecture.