Software Development in the Time of New Angels
11 comments
·November 3, 2025scuff3d
simonw
Completely agree on your first point: software development is so much more than writing code. LLMs are a threat to programmers for whom the job is 8 hours a day of writing code to detailed specifications provided by other people. I can't remember any point in my own career where I worked with people who got to do that.
On your second point: I wouldn't recommend betting against costs continuing to fall. The cost reduction trend has been reliable over the past three years.
In 2022 the best available models was GPT-3 text-davinci-003 at $60/million input tokens.
GPT-5 today is $1.25/million input tokens - 48x cheaper for a massively more capable model.
... and we already know it can be even cheaper. Kimi K2 came out two weeks ago benchmarking close to (possibly even above) GPT-5 and can be run at an even lower cost.
I'm willing to bet there are still significantly more optimizations to be discovered, and prices will continue to drop - at least on a per-token basis.
We're beginning to find more expensive ways to use the models though. Coding Agents like Claude Code and Codex CLI can churn through tokens.
hdivider
Here's what I don't understand.
Developers who get excited by agentic development put out posts like this. (I get excited too.)
Other developers tend to point out objections in terms of maintainability, scalability, overly complicated solutions, and so on. All of which are valid.
However, this part of AI evolves very quickly. So given these are known problems, why shouldn't we expect rapid improvements in agentic AI systems for software development, to the point where software developers who stick with the old paradigm will indeed be eroded in time? I'm genuinely curious because clearly the speed of advancement is significant.
vages
Anecdotally, I find early mover advantage to be overrated (ask anyone who bought Betamax or HD-DVD players). It is significantly cheaper – on average – to exploit what you already know and learn from the mistakes of other, earlier movers.
datadrivenangel
The bit about Knight Capital implies that the software engineers were bad, which is notably untrue.
"A bad [software engineer] can easily destroy that much value even faster (A developer at Knight Capital destroyed $440 million in 45 minutes with a deployment error and some bad configuration logic, instantly bankrupting the firm by reusing a flag variable). "
hinkley
There were decidedly shitty engineering decisions behind that dumpster fire.
The biggest being that the only safe way to recycle feature flag names is to put ample time separation between the last use of the previous meaning for the flag and the first application of the new use. They did not. If they had, they would have noticed that one server was not getting redeployed properly in the time gap between the two uses.
They also did not do a full rollback. They rolled back the code but not the toggles, which ignited the fire.
These are rookie mistakes. If you want to argue they are journeyman mistakes, I won’t fight you too much, but they absolutely demonstrate a lack of mastery of the problem domain. And when millions of dollars change hands per minute you’d better not be Faking it Til You Make It.
facundo_olano
Willing to accept AI agents can replace programmers
Not willing to accept ex-US devs can do a comparable job at half the price
williamstein
If I hired a software developer a few years ago, I might expect them to do roughly what Claude Code does today on some task (?). If I hired a dev today I would expect much more from them than what Claude Code can currently do.
datadrivenangel
This is a very insightful article:
"You might be expecting that here is where I would start proclaiming the death of software development. That I would start on how the strange new angels of agentic AI are simply going to replace us wholesale in order to feast on that $150/hour, and that it's time to consider alternative careers. I'm not going to do that, because I absolutely don't believe it. Agentic AI means that anything you know to code can be coded very rapidly. Read that sentence carefully. If you know just what code needs to be created to solve an issue you want, the angels will grant you that code at the cost of a prompt or two. The trouble comes in that most people don't know what code needs to be created to solve their problem, for any but the most trivial problems. Who does know what code would be needed to solve complex problems? Currently that's only known by software developers, development managers and product managers, three job classifications that are going to be merging rapidly."
aetherspawn
Ah.. you got me. Put (AI) in the title or something.
null
The core of the entire argument is that the $150/hour is based on a developers ability to physically write code, which is not true. Having something that can generate code reliabily (which these things can barely do even with an expert at the wheel) doesn't address any of the actual hard problems we deal with on a daily basis.
Plus running AI tools is going to get much more expensive. The current prices aren't sustainable long term and they don't have any viable path to reducing costs. If anything the cost of operations for the big company are going to get worse. They're in the "get 'em hooked" stage of the drug deal.