I’m scared for what happens ten years from now when none of the junior folk ever learned to write code themselves and now think they are senior engineers…
This trend started long before AI. Everybody needs 10+ years experience to get a job anywhere. As an industry we've been terrible at up-leveling the younger generations.
I've been fighting this battle for years in my org and every time we start to make progress we go through yet another crisis and have to let some of our junior staff go. Then when we need to hire again it's an emergency and we can only hire more senior staff because we need to get things done and nobody is there to fill the gaps.
I can second this cycle. Agentic code AI is an accelerant to this fire that sure looks like it's burning the bottom rungs of the ladder. Game theory suggests anyone already on the ladder needs to chop off as much of the bottom of the ladder as fast as possible. The cycle appears to only be getting.. vicious-er.
Hopefully theyll all become plumbers or schoolteachers or something.
There's a glut of junior dev talent and not enough real problems out there which a junior can apply themselves to.
This means that most of them simply arent able to get the kind of experience which will push them into the next skill bracket.
It used to be that you could use them to build cheap proofs of concept or self contained scripting but those are things AI doesnt actually suck too badly at. Even back then there were too many juniors and not enough roles though.
There's a glut of "talent", but most of them are attracted by the inflated paycheck and aren't actually talented. In the past, they would either get promoted to middle management where they can't do any damage, or burn out and find another career. Now they can fake it long enough to sink your company, and then move on (with experience on their resume!) to their next victim. Things are gonna be really ugly in 10 years.
I'm fairly confident there's going to be no shortage of work for programmers who actually halfway know what they're doing for the remainder of my career (another 20ish years, probably), at least. So that's nice.
Though cleaning up garbage fires isn't exactly fun. Gonna need to raise my rates.
> Though cleaning up garbage fires isn't exactly fun. Gonna need to raise my rates.
This is what I did way back when I was a professional web designer. Cleaning up nasty "tag-soup" DreamWeaver and MS Word websites for folks cost extra compared to my normal rates for just building them a fresh "from-scratch" website.
Vibe coding as a concept started out last December. That was only 9 months ago. I doubt any people will be writing or maintaining code in a couple of years.
There will always be software written by people who know what they are doing. Unless LLM generated code is perfect, there will always be a demand for high quality code.
Yep, that and a bunch of ancient Jewish texts mention using blue within religious contexts with spiritual meaning. It's come to be that blue has been considered by Jews as a color that is representative of the Jewish people
“ It's to the point where every journal publisher and every editor will tell you, if they're being honest, that they have been and are continually being offered bribes. I would be very suspicious if someone tried to act shocked at the question, as if they'd never heard of such a thing. This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it.”
Well… then start reporting it with names publicly and to authorities…
> "every journal publisher and every editor will tell you..."
As much as I disdain academic fraud, I'm also deeply suspicious of statements about "every" editor. So I asked my wife, would is a lead editor of a major scientific journal. Her experience is nothing of the kind. Crappy paper-mill papers, plagiarism, etc.? Yes. Flat-out bribes, no.
Same. I serve in an editorial role for a top journal in my field. I know some foreign universities pay six-figure bonuses to faculty who publish in my journal. I have never been offered anything like a bribe.
In addition to the "every publisher" claim, he also states, "And don't get the idea that it's just Hindawi - how could it be? MDPI journals are mixed up in this, De Gruyter, IMR, AIMS Press and many others as well." However, he only provides evidence that something is seriously amiss at Hindawi.
The author links to two articles that detail some really shady behavior, but after reading them it doesn't look like he is adding anything new to the discussion beyond speculation and outrage. Well, that, and using his name and platform to amplify the message that it is time to get serious about fraud in scientific publications (which is laudable).
This is a serious problem, with the linked articles detailing brazen advertisement of payment for publication by people and organizations who appear to be associated with paper mills. I don't think the takeaway is that we should immediately throw the baby out with the bathwater, but this definitely needs a lot of urgent and sustained attention.
No it won’t - the vast majority of the perpetrators, perhaps rightfully, will think that doesn’t apply to their case because of their instititional politics.
I think it's more how the incentives in the system are set up. Unless the incentives change (publish or perish, gatekeeping journals, etc.), then nothing will change.
Just look at all the high profile academic fraud cases in politics - Von Der Leyen (President of the EU Commission, plagiarized half of her dissertation, zero consequences), Aschbacher (Former Minister in Austria, her thesis was filled with grammatical and logical errors that would've shocked a high school teacher, gets to keep her PhD), Voshmgirs (Founding Director of the Institute for Cryptoeconomics at the Vienna University of Economics, the only one who might actually lose her PhD because of this)
As long as the general public does not care nothing will change.
> And don't get the idea that it's just Hindawi - how could it be? MDPI journals are mixed up in this, De Gruyter, IMR, AIMS Press and many others as well. Any publisher where people are willing to look the other way.
Authorities? I don't think it's illegal. Also I get roughly 5 offers of "bribes" (of the "special issue" variety) a day, it's an overwhelming situation.
Exactly. Bribing editors to publish your paper is unethical, it's not breaking any laws. The word "bribe" the has the connotation of secretly paying government officials, which is illegal. But authors paying editors? I don't think that's legally viewed as any different for scientific publications than it is for fiction, where pay-to-publish is an accepted practice. (Disclaimer - IANAL)
A bribe doesn't have to involve a government official.
A bribe requires three entities:
- the one paying the bribe (in this case the paper's author)
- the one receiving the bribe (in this case the journal editor)
- the one that actually provides the benefit (in this case the company that owns the journal)
What makes it a bribe is that, instead of paying the entity that's providing the service, you're paying an agent of the entity.
If you pay Harvard $1MM to admit your child, that's not a bribe. It's just a transaction. If you pay a Harvard admissions officer $1MM (to their personal account) so that they admit your child, that's a bribe.
The definition of what constitutes bribery is not limited to legal matters or government officials.
The legal vs. ethical distinction helps determine what can be done about the bribery, but does not change the nature of the act itself. It’s just that bribing government officials has been (appropriately) deemed problematic enough to make it a legal issue vs. just an ethical one.
This scandal may very well provide the impetus to make this kind of bribery illegal too, because of the degree of harm and public interest in that harm.
> Bribery refers to the offering, giving, soliciting, or receiving of any item of value as a means of influencing the actions of an individual holding a public or legal duty.
Scientific journals are not public institutions (though maybe they should be) so their editors aren't holding public duty. Legal duty also seems a stretch, though maybe possible depending on how the editor's contracts are worded. I suspect they don't say very much detail on job responsibilities though.
So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.
This might sound pedantic, but this might be better framed as: The form of bribery that is illegal is the kind that involves offering, giving, soliciting…an individual holding a public or legal duty.
Bribery as a concept stands on its own, outside of the legal system. The legal system defines what forms of bribery will get you in legal trouble, but does not have a monopoly on bribery itself.
To your point, that means there are forms of bribery that may be technically legal.
Yes, the difference between illegal and immoral is one I've myself tried to explain to HN people often enough (though more usually in the context of people trying to argue "It's not illegal, why are you complaining about it", when a company does something immoral). That is why I had the final paragraph:
> So immoral, and stuff many companies and institutions consequently have policies against, but doesn't seem illegal.
While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal, there are many places (maybe most?) where it's not. Presumably due to the fact that it's near impossible to prove in court unless they were giving out receipts that said "bribe for business deal" on them or something. Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
> While it's true that there are U.S. states where it's illegal
Its over 2/3rds of states and includes most major ones have laws against commercial kickbacks. Even in states that aren't you could be charged with fraud under state law.
> Otherwise there's almost no scenario where you can't say "we're friends and they gave me a gift, I chose their company for the contract because I thought they were the best choice."
This argument is silly. It applies equally to federal laws that are frequently used to prosecute kickbacks for government employees, contractors and subcontractors. There are plenty of ways to charge someone with kickbacks besides idiotically labeled receipts.
Just because you think you can get away with something because it is hard to prove, doesn't make that activity legal, let alone moral/ethical.
Science keeps a lot of traditions that would be illegal in most fields.
A company wouldn't dare to say publicly "People older than 30 Years can't apply to our job" or "People from NY will be favored, we will not hire people from Louisiana". I see equivalent claims in the Academic field aaaall the time; is pissing on the constitution, and nobody fucking cares.
A fiction editor and a journal editor make very different assertions about what their role is and what their product is. A journal editor taking a bribe could violate claims and promises they have made for commercial gain and could thus constitute fraud, even without any applicable commercial bribery laws in their states.
I know a lab that tried to publish names along with scores for the likelihood that they were h-index hacking.
It's a very popular thing to do for more well known scientists.
Unfortunately legal teams were very discouraging to do so and publishing that type of thing is hard, so it didn't happen.
I think this accountability is a good point… if someone told me absent any other information that a company had the issues Boeing has been having, then I would assume they get shut down or forced into a restructured management with hugely increased regulatory oversight.
I think there is something very different about handwriting than typing. Like, listen to a lecture and write notes on a pad, and then go to the lecture the next day and type them on a computer.
Then, wait a week, and take a test without reviewing anything.
My money, based on my experience, is on you better remembering the handwritten notes. I think this is because you cannot write as fast as you type, so you have to hear, think about what is important, and summarize when handwriting. When typing, you can get almost all the words someone says typed out. So you switch to "hear-to-type" mode without thinking.
So, I think it is important for learning to have that skill. I think it is better in the real world too, for some use cases. If I am in a meeting with a counterparty, I take hand written notes. I rarely look at the notes after. Why? I remember what we talked about.
I used to bring a computer and type out notes - and I still do if I need perfect information to reference later - but when I do that, my notes take the place of my memory.
It seems more efficient to handwrite my notes and have my memory be my memory instead.
Research has shown that writing notes by hand leads to better retention than typing even if the notes are never read in the future. However, given that writing is just 7000 years old, I'm not sure how long will it take before typing to become the more natural skill (if typing does last for 7000 years that is)
The other thing that is important about reading beyond brain development is the learning of lessons / history / culture. I can't remember who the quote is from, but something like "He who does not read lives but one life. He who reads can live thousands."
There is also something about forming your own identity that is important too - like understanding history tells you something about who you are and who you can become. Stealing from David McCullough [1]:
"History is philosophy taught with examples... First of all we have to get across the idea that we have to know who we were if we’re to know who we are and where we’re headed."
"The Greeks said that character is destiny, and the more I read and understand of history, the more convinced I am that they were right... It is not in the still calm of life or the repose of a pacific station that great characters are formed."
And so reading is much more than just developing skills around reading and focus, it is about learning and growing as an individual.
> The other thing that is important about reading beyond brain development is the learning of lessons / history / culture. I can't remember who the quote is from, but something like "He who does not read lives but one life. He who reads can live thousands."
You could say the same today about video games, movies, television, or even youtubers. Exposure to culture enriches the mind.
Not to imply playing video games is as intellectually stimulating as reading, but I feel like some games really challenge you in a positive manner. The ability to manage your inventory, interact with characters, make choices and deal with the consequences are all great for expanding your mind. Essentially, playing some RPGs (I feel) can make you a slightly better person whereas I have a hard time seeing the intellectual value in something like Fortnite.
That's absolutely true. The game matters. Games with a strong story can put you in the role of someone with unfamiliar backgrounds and challenges where other games are more about reflexes. I think they likely all have some sort of value. Fine motor skills, teamwork, dealing with success/failure, spatial reasoning, etc. but a good story is great for lessons you can't get with space invaders or bejeweled.
>The ability to manage your inventory, interact with characters, make choices and deal with the consequences are all great for expanding your mind.
Have you tried playing Minecraft with mods? You know, something like GT New Horizons or Omnifactory. Those will melt your brain. They are the equivalent of climbing a mountain vs taking a leisurely stroll (reading). The idea that reading would be as mentally stimulating as that sounds ridiculous to me.
"Some RPGs". You have seen nothing. Nothing at all.
This is amazing; really puts in perspective how hard it would be to say you know someone sent a balloon exactly to you, or that they didn't mean to... its something you could plan for (like this shows) and something that probably is very fickle
One of the things I like about Cicero is that he shows that event when one is not perfect, you can consistently improve yourself and others. Cicero was kind of a disgusting person, to me - he was very vain, easily influenced by popular opinion and wanting to fit in, wanted to be close to men of power, changed his position on topics based on what was politically convenient, and so on.
But he also was a great thinker. And as he aged, he was forced to confront his own declining capabilities. And I think some regrets around the above "failed" personality traits lead to him realizing that the only way to be "successful" in old age is to have been moral, as your own brain sees it, when you were young.
So it's interesting that so much of how we judge ourselves is based on what we ourselves believe is right and wrong... and you can't escape that, it seems.
As someone who has grown to loathe Cicero (quite unexpectedly) as I’ve studied more Roman history, this explanation rings true to me. Of course the best life is the life he chose, even when it’s transparently untrue. On the one hand I feel a great kinship with the utterly neurotic Cicero of his letters, especially the years in exile (much of which spent eating to excess as he derides here). On the other hand he’s one of the most contemptible and pompous hypocrites in history, and I almost wish only his books survived.
I know, right? I don't loath him though... like, maybe I purposefully have chosen to not judge him, and maybe he is a bad person generally... but there is something human about the contradictions. You can hear in his writing the same things I feel when I am looking at the weights I bough downstairs telling myself I should work out, but then also watching myself walk upstairs to watch TV instead.
It's also hard because, it's like... are his ideas just made up and not possible to follow, then? or, can you learn from someone that failed at reaching their own "ideal," because everyone falls short.
I would forgive him if he were merely bloviating, but there’s fairly good evidence now that his early legal speeches weren’t as trenchant in their criticism of Sulla as he liked to make out, and his voting record is often him upholding Sullan constitutional reforms. So it’s hard to buy him as the fierce opponent of despots that he clearly wanted to be seen as. And I find it almost impossible to to swallow his account (and let’s be clear it’s his account alone) of the Catiline conspiracy, and even if you do, again here the arch defender of the Roman constitution has it suspended so he can commit extra judicial murders. He did real harm to the Republic at a time he could have had huge influence. I’ve always felt there were strong parallels with Pompey. They both just wanted to be loved and accepted by the aristocracy and so were easily captured for their very obvious talents. But he just spent so long blowing in the wind that I’m baffled by the popular historical perception of him. Cato, who I think is by far a bigger bastard, was at least consistent in his own self interest.
"Everyone learns from experience: fools from their own, the wise from others' "
We're all human, so there's still a lot we can learn from the less than complete self-criticism of others (whether we acknowledge our own eye-beams or not).
Incidentally, I once read of a latin author who had been exiled to Marseille, and corresponding with a friend, reporting (like Aesop's fox?) that the figs there were by far the best he'd ever had. I've never been able to re-discover this anecdote, leading me to think I might have dreamt it, but could it have been Cicero? If he had been eating a lot in exile, and was exiled in Marseille, I'll have to dig around that period...
Thanks! It took me ~hour, not an afternoon, with perseus but I eventually found it. (made a bit more difficult because it's greek, not latin[0], and red mullet, not fig!)
