As I've been working with some AI (Artificial Intelligence) technologies, what I've often found is that they produce junior-level code. The code I'd expect from someone early in their career or inexperienced in a particular area. That is code that likely works, but isn't efficient or clean or perhaps incomplete in some way.

I'm sure AI technologies will improve, and we'll be able to train them better for our environment. Just like we train junior developers to be better. However, what does that mean for junior people across the next decade? I ran across an interesting post on the death of the junior developer, which speculates we might have a problem as an industry.

The post references an article from Gene Kim, where a law firm sees a similar problem with their junior people, who are associates. That position might be equivalent to the junior developer in software. Someone with more experience and knowledge often reviews work and helps shape it, even though the junior person does the work. With AI, however, we might not need the junior person. Instead, the AI produces work the senior person has to review. Finding issues with associate work is a lot like finding hallucination problems in AI responses.

The same could be said of coding. There is plenty of poorly written code, but if senior people become good at writing prompts and getting the same code back that a junior developer would write, then how many junior people do we need? Arguably less, though you might still need a few. Or you might think that you need all the junior people and you'll get 10x more work done, clearing your backlog. Certainly, I know most developers, DBAs, and other IT people have a large backlog of problems.

However, the problem with junior people using LLM (large language model) AIs and getting more done is that they might generate a lot more bad code, so much that your senior people can't find the time to review the code and you end up with systems that contain even more technical debt than you have today. Perhaps we even find systems that don't perform well enough for regular use or create constant issues that your developers try to fix with AI, which might not work. I can certainly see things deteriorating rapidly.

There's a great quote in the Gene Kim piece: "I believe this furthers the case that AI helps the experienced people far more than inexperienced people — the seniors more than the juniors."

I'm starting to think that might be the case. Senior people are going to become very productive, and very valuable. Junior people are going to struggle, and while they'll get work done, the quality will vary. Maybe that's good, or maybe we will start to see a rapid divergence of not only productivity but salaries. If you can hire a senior person to produce better code at the same rate as your 5 junior people, maybe you'll want to pay that senior person $200k a year and reduce junior rates to $45k a year.

I don't know that we'll see rapid changes, as many organizations are slow to alter the way they hire, code, or structure their staff. However, as there is success by others, especially when it's touted in places like the ETLS, I can see other managers being influenced. That will filter over time to those who hire to pick the productive, senior-level people who can showcase some code skills in an interview. Craft a prompt to solve a problem, get some code back, refine it, explain where and why you'd change your prompt or use parts of the code, and we might see the AI-capable people getting hired quickly, and for fantastic compensation.

I don't know that I think this reduces a lot of junior staff, mostly because of organizational inertia, but I do think that learning to be better at your craft and learning to use AI is likely to increase your future earnings.