>On almost all points, Baugues misses the mark. First, there is a qualitative difference between an auto worker (unskilled manual work) and a software developer (skilled knowledge work) that made automating the former inevitable.
As a rebuttal, I would point to some passages from Martin Ford's book on automation, The Lights in the Tunnel:
>A common misconception about automation is the idea that it will primarily impact low paying jobs that require few skills or training. To illustrate that this is not necessarily the case, consider two very different occupations: a radiologist and a housekeeper....
>In fact, we can reasonably say that software jobs (or knowledge worker jobs) are typically high paying jobs. This creates a very strong incentive for businesses to offshore and, when possible, automate these jobs....
>As a result, we can expect that, in the future, automation will fall heavily on knowledge workers and in particular on highly paid workers....
In general, I think knowledge jobs are at greater risk of automation than manual labor jobs. Robots are expensive. And they also don't scale as well as software. It's no coincidence that the largest software companies dwarf the largest robot companies. Ultimately, because software can scale, it becomes ridiculously cheap when you deploy it to millions or billions of people.
I agree with your overall point that creativity and design are hard to automate. However, software jobs are being and will be automated. What matters in the end is whether automation increases or decreases the overall demand for development. I.e., whether software automation is a complement to labor or a supplement to labor. So far, it's been a complement and software productivity has skyrocketed over the last couple of decades. This trend seems likely to continue, but who knows what the future holds 100 years from now.
P.S. Another industry that evolved similarly is agriculture. At first, tools and animals made farmers more productive, and farmer employment rose. But eventually, productivity rose so high that farmers started to saturate demand. Today, only 2% of Americans are farmers, despite farmers being the most productive of all time. So what's the moral here? What can software learn from farming? I think the moral is that quantity supplied is a function of both SUPPLY of labor and DEMAND for labor, and you can't ignore one when you predict the future.
P.P.S. You probably realize that the weakness of the agriculture comparison is that the hunger for food is far more easily sated than the hunger for software. The first has a biological limit, whereas the second is ostensibly unlimited. Therefore, you might reason, higher productivity in software is less likely to saturate demand and reduce employment. However, I would caution that some software demands might be easily saturated. Consider a company that wants its own website and app. If websites and apps become 100x cheaper (as a result of automation/higher productivity), would businesses demand 100x as many? Probably not.
P.P.P.S. Not all manual labor is created equal. Repetitive, indoor labor is much easier to automate than non-repetitive or outdoor labor.
Regarding your PPS - it's not so much that demand for software is unlimited, it's that software can be used for far more purposes than food or natural resources. A single algorithm can be used in multiple industries, and given that the world doesn't develop evenly as a whole, there will be software opportunities in the real world (machinery), in processing the real world (commerce), in the virtual world (media), and in processing the virtual world (analytics), and these opportunities will increasingly require more and more knowledge and creativity.
My point is that the qualitative difference between a creative and non-creative job is mitigated to some extent by all the 'non-creative' stuff we have to do every day. So even knowledge workers are not immune to 'dumb' automation. An example of this would be remote work and off-shoring, which has opened up software development projects to global competition.
However, the argument still stands - knowledge workers aren't unionized manual labour and if robots are going to replace everything, someone has to program the robots. And, there's easily going to be more 'robots' tomorrow than today for some time to come. So what could end the 'world automation' gravy train we are on right now?
IMHO, the average knowledge worker has a much clearer and more present danger that the chance they might be making themselves redundant - and one that would affect pretty much everyone, not just knowledge workers. They should more concerned about that other thing that destroys demand: financial destruction. The redundancy threat that knowledge workers should be concerned about are the sins of our owners coming home to roost; another depression.
Regarding your last point, I think a knowledge worker smart enough to automate themselves out of a job will be smart enough to capitalize on that discovery. Moreover, there will always be tasks people will prefer done manually, knowledge-based or otherwise.
Do you mean that housekeeper and radiologist were cherrypicked and that in reality laborers are at higher risk of automation than knowledge workers?
A hotelier's job, the well-compensated version of a housekeeper's job, is also difficult to automate. On the flip side, a good deal of information processing jobs, no matter how well compensated, can be automated. I think the point was made rather bluntly, without elaboration.
The excess labor from agriculture was absorbed into other fields (so to speak). Not always painlessly -- working conditions in early Industrial Revolution factories were terrible (see Toynbee and Carlyle for descriptions, as well as, of course, Dickens). But once the kinks were worked out, we ended up with carpenters and welders and artists and writers and dog walkers.
My own view is that we're starting to run a bit far in that direction, but the coming shortage of raw materials and energy will likely address that problem for us, if not how many would prefer it be done.
In a small way, one can argue that increasingly easy-to-use frameworks are already having that effect. Right now, with the market for software and software developers growing so rapidly, the efficiency gained from using frameworks is a great thing for the individual programmer. The time she doesn't spend building animations or site looks or CMS's can easily be applied to other problems, and she benefits directly from the increased productivity. But it's risky to assume that the demand for software will always outpace the supply, as this has never been the case for any other labor market I can think of. Markets seek and tend to eventually find equilibrium in these areas.
To pick on the "We'll never be automated example":
It's not that one day programs will write programs that write--oh wait, that's already happened. It's not that tools will come around that making throwing up a simple website with ecommerce functionality ea--shit, that happened too.
It's that the core functions of software, from a business perspective, are pretty much nailed down now. It's that the average dudebro with an MBA and half a brain can throw together an MVP and start getting market feedback. It's that the homeless guy who lives down the street from me can publish an ebook from his acer.
The thing that we all love so much, the removal of gatekeepers and democratization of information capital? Yeah, so, that thing is what will put us out of jobs. And that's fine.
The thing the author misses is not that there won't be a few gigs around for people who need to optimize their database backends and red-black tree all the things and skiplist their twitters--it's that the vast majority of things that used to require people to find a coder to help them are now a few buttons away.
Oh, and also that we've cultivated a user base so ignorant and attracted to simple glossy black boxes that they can't appreciate what it is to have a real engineer along for the ride anyways, nor how to usefully communicate with them if they had one. That's going to sting too.
I like your optimism, but the average guy with an MBA definitely can't throw a MVP together, especially not in 2013 when the low hanging fruit have been steadily picked off. The bar is continuously being raised, and it'll be cheaper for the MBA to hire a developer to throw that MVP together, using highly complex and abstract components.
If I'm getting the second half of your reply right, you're saying it's the availability of high-quality low-complexity zero-cost solutions to mundane problems that's going to put software developers out of a job. But that's exactly what I address in my post - these things were going to be automated anyway. And don't be disappointed by a user base attracted to glossy boxes - some of them will get curious eventually.
If you count things like Weebly, the answer is: a "whole bunch of people", heading rapidly toward "everyone". Not that long ago, every Weebly customer would have meant a programming job for someone. That kind of work is gone.
Then take a close look at AWS, Heroku, Rackspace...those were all systems engineering jobs. Startups don't have to hire people to do that now. What used to be thousands of jobs is now maybe a tenth of that.
"the average guy with an MBA definitely can't throw a MVP together"
You're wrong. It happens all the time. It happens so often that's a cliche. You can't go to a meetup in the valley without being assaulted by ten brohans looking for "feedback" on their "MVP".
The important thing to realize is that the need for software engineers doesn't scale with the maximum complexity of software projects; it scales as a function of the average complexity: think of a bell curve, where the X-axis is "complexity", and "need for engineers" is the area under the curve to one side of some vertical line. We keep moving that line further and further toward greater complexity. So far, the distribution has shifted to keep up, but there's no guarantee that will keep happening.
Are we going to need people to write complex, novel software in 2050? Absolutely. Will we need more people than we need to write complex, novel software today? That's not a question with a predictable answer. It might well turn out that the "average" programmer (say, the ones who know how to use Rails and jQuery and are fond of complaining about interview questions involving algorithms) is a doomed creature.
Re MBA guys - maybe we have a different understanding of MVP here. I don't mean PowerPoint-ware - I mean version 0.1 of a product solving real problems. MBAs that are working on something more complex than yet another social network will immediately look for an engineer.
I'm not missing the average/maximum-complexity point at all, but I have a different view on it than you do. The average complexity won't stay constant, it'll keep increasing, and the average programmer will have to adapt. Will that mean a reduction in demand? I doubt it - we've yet to see the full extent of how software can be used. On the flip side, I constantly see clients looking for someone to fix or alter their "automated" installations - the average programmer will surely be in enough demand from these cases alone.
Isn't that kind of like saying that every pirated album == a lost sale?
Hi, I write software for a living. Just replace the most tedious part, please: debugging.
Say what? You can't even give me a probability [1] that my program has an infinite loop in it?
As for your request:
https://ece.uwaterloo.ca/~lintan/publications/r2fix-icst13.p...
But bugs aside, part of the allure of having a program generate a program is that it is much less likely to produce bugs in the first place. That said, we still have a ways to go before we achieve human-like synthetic developers.
I can't. That's why I basically rummage through the code base, using all kinds of heuristics, most of which I make up on the spot. Sometimes it takes me two minutes to find that off-by-one, and other times two days.
Interesting paper. I don't think it will help that much though:
>Ideally, we want to automatically generate patches for all bug reports. Realistically, it is impossible. [...] Even among bugs that can be fixed, some are too complex to be fixed automatically [...] Therefore, a realistic goal is to automatically generate patches for relatively simple bugs [where] the bug reports contain useful information, e.g., the buggy file and the symptom
The automation of tasks that formerly required writing software, are automated by someone writing new software.
This should be the normal, everyday experience of the software developer. Take the software you wrote yesterday, and write higher level software on top of it today to accomplish things you couldn't before.
So automating the software jobs of yesterday out of existence will require the software jobs of tomorrow.
As for the computers writing their own software, that strikes me as indicating the Singularity has arrived, in which case all human jobs will be obsolete.
This.
User timr writes:
"Then take a close look at AWS, Heroku, Rackspace...those were all systems engineering jobs. Startups don't have to hire people to do that now. What used to be thousands of jobs is now maybe a tenth of that."
Let's take this point and unravel it a bit. AWS is hugely disruptive. It takes work previously done by operations folks (like me) and puts useful tools directly in the hands of users (programmers).
This is a huge change that increases a programmer's efficiency. (I prefer the term developer, but I'll keep it to stay consistent). In effect, it has removed one of the major barriers to entry, that is, getting your code online and accessible from the internet.
So automation is the thrust of the argument; robots on the assembly line replacing auto-workers jobs. Someone had to build those robots.
In the programmers case, that someone is a programmer.
So, what can we learn from all this?
Change is good. We need these disruptions to setup the next growth phase. Software is different. The barriers to entry are being removed. Productivity increases as a result.
Be on the positive side of the change. Predict, plan, strategize, and stay relevant.
Happy Labor Day.
Not by definition. Rather, only once it becomes easier to automate than to do by hand, we automate.
The question is when will the demand for software be low enough that this ongoing process will reduce the number of programmer jobs.
As long as we (software engineers) don't sequester ourselves wholesale in a homogenous monolith but continuously keep up with innovation, we should be well equipped to respond to changes in the market in time. The first article touches on this in the last paragraph, but I'm not convinced it's for the "right reasons".
The whole point of writing software is to make it so you don't have to keep doing the same thing over and over. That doesn't mean there aren't new things to do. Software really is eating the world. If we run out of software jobs, it's probably because we've automated literally everything else already.
If you have used eclipse over the years you will see the kind of gradual automation happening there. Its not the kind of automation that produces code automagically all alone by itself. But software like eclipse pulls the barrier to entry too low to a point even people who understand nothing much about Java or in general about software can comfortable contribute to make a living out of it. And eclipse is only getting better with time. These days you can pretty much code complex Java application without even reading a book. I guess very soon, software like eclipse will fill-in-code-blocks as we express a intention. And then our job will be to stitch those blocks.
This is what is dangerous. And this kind of thing has the potential to drive the supply up very quickly. Thereby the wages decline.
There is no 1-1 mapping, between a automaker and programmer. But the theme is very common.
I am even damn sure we will soon make software a commodity to a point when people can think in terms of abstract software blocks. Just like how a common man can today think of a car in terms of engine, clutch, gear etc.
The programmers job is not to do the things that eclipse can do. It's doing the things that he could do on paper, or just in his mind.
Automating programming is like automating composers, writers and actors. Possible, but hardly desireable.
Before I get to that, my personal forecast is: income expectancy for intelligent and hardworking people will continue to increase but so will variance. Eventually, the variance will become intolerable enough (sans regularization) that basic income will appear to be the only solution; even the smartest people will see a personal need for something like it. There will be a lot of struggling and fighting over implementation (e.g. do college graduates get more? how about families? should society incentivize or penalize reproduction?) but everyone will agree that it's necessary. That's probably about 30-50 years from now.
Okay, so what's the #1 threat to software developers' job security? Not robots. We have robots that write code (compilers) and our jobs are still challenging. Instead, it's upper-level complacency in society. An elite that would rather hold position and keep relative rank than grow society and gain absolute prosperity (but at a lesser rate than others, losing rank). Historically, this is the norm for elites. Many people, especially in positions of power (because power selects such people) would rather reign in hell than serve in heaven. If they can conspire toward self-protection and social mediocrity, they will. The good news is that, in a large and heterogeneous society, it's actually very hard to hold any conspiracy together for very long. This is why conspiracy theories overstate the power of such organizations; conspiracies (lower-case 'c') exist all over the place (e.g. Davos assholes) but none have the power to run the world unilaterally. It's too chaotic and large. Societies and nations have set themselves back centuries when their elites conspired toward mediocrity, but I don't think the world elite is capable of doing so-- especially not now.
If the global business elite figures out a way to conspire toward mediocrity, the people like us are fucked, because excellence will cease to matter and being good at what one does will just get one the reputation of a troublemaker. However, the likelihood that anyone could pull this together in a world with unprecedented distribution of technical literacy is incredibly low.
As long as there are people looking to do things in this world, and the world continues to advance technologically, there will be a high level of demand for people who are technically competent. We might be applying our skills differently and changing industries, but there will be work for us, and society would have to reach an advanced (that is, certainly plausible but unlikely) state of degradation for us not to do that work on at least half-decent (e.g. middle-class) terms.
