I just finished a PhD in stats, and before that, studied computer science. I had planned to go back to industry to do software engineering or be a data scientist afterwards.
However, it seems that in the meantime, vibe coding has taken over the software industry and swallowed most data scientist roles. Few open positions, and the ones that do exist are just pushing a button instead of thinking and solving problems. Is this a correct assessment? Should I try to get back in or just find a new career? I am not too keen on staying in academia either.
I don’t feel comfortable telling anyone to go into software engineering right now. I think the future is really uncertain. That said, I’m also not convinced this is a bad time.
The need for software engineering isn’t going away. LLMs are actually not very good at thinking and solving problems at a high level, so we still need people for that. LLMs are more of a performance multiplier than a replacement for human software engineers.
That does mean that fewer engineers will be needed to do the same work. But also, I think there’s a chance it’s a Jevons Paradox situation, and maybe if the cost of software drops we’ll see even more demand for it - like how we found tons of new uses for electricity when prices dropped. Maybe we’re entering a golden age of bespoke software. Unclear.
This. You still need to know how to write and organize code to guide LLMs in the right direction, you just don’t have to write the code yourself anymore, that’s no longer economical at scale.
The skills you need to guide LLMs though comes from practical application/experience writing code in the industry though, so my concern is how people are going to get those skills now. You don’t get them from college.
Yeah… it’s going to be really rough for new engineers for a while until we figure out a new way to train people. I think there will be people who are self taught and AI native who will do really well, but they will be the minority.
The main point of software being a hugely profitable field is that its marginal cost is low with huge up-front investment in enginners.
So it 1) creates a natural barrier to entry but 2) is hugely profitable in the long term.
AI breaks the natrual monopoly created by 1). Even though 2) remains, but it is still unclear how newer companies will survive within this largely saturated space.
Even more unfortunately, we don’t really seem to have an industry as profitable as software that remains reasonably unsaturated (maybe computer chips/hardware?). It feels like the economy might be in for a bad time soon, just because it has been riding on waves upon waves of innovation for a couple decades, and all of them are now eatten up by AI.
I agree with this take. Lots of uncertainty because LLMs are rubbish at probably solving (which is a human’s strength). LLMs don’t have a semantic understanding of the problem they’ve been tasked with solving.
tl;dr LLMs are useful tool but not software engineers.
The Jevons paradox point is interesting. Maybe we’ll finally get better software products, so far it seems like everything is as buggy and slow as as ever.
Even if unemployment isn’t an issue, engineers would need to have the flexibility/freedom to do things by hand sometimes though I think. Go into details, understand the lower level work. Just like pilots occasionally hand-fly not to lose their skills. Otherwise, it’s just too mind numbing to do long term, even if humans were involved in the big picture decisions.
It’s not an engineering problem I’d say. Enshittificatiom is an effect of capitalism.
If a Performanz and mostly working software is the goal, that has been possible for a long time.
The bar to be a coder is being lowered, but actual software engineering with metrics, requirements, and deadlines will probably increase. I can easily see a world where everyone rushes into the AI to solve problems that used to not be cost effective and at the end of the first push (hopefully that’s around now) there’s a lot of new, untested code, and no metrics whether programmers were more efficient, and more importantly no metrics (I saw stats PhD) about whether the bottom line increased: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/10/02/ai-redefining-wall-street-jobs.html
How would one measure the efficacy of two different AI generated trading regimes (or however it is they work up there) when the people who understood what they were asking can’t understand any of the code?
Yeah this aligns with my intuition. In the things that are easy to verify (is the div centered, does the server crash) humans are quickly becoming obsolete, in the things that are difficult to verify, you still need a human to make sure the code is doing what you think it is.
I’ve heard from an anquintance that their electricity pricing company just uses black box AI things for pricing. Cool, until it sells 10M worth of electricity for 500k and the grid runs out of electricity. In use cases like that, complex evaluation is required and probably can’t be fully automated anytime soon.
It shouldn’t be, but it seems like there’s an apetite for letting the AI cook and blaming it if something goes wrong (no actual consequences faced). I can’t wait until an AI escapes test lab containment and sends a side channel message to the pricing AI to drop the power price to nothing so it’s cheaper to run more AI. /s
I just don’t see people ever falling all the way out of the loop. Eventually economics will prevent the AI from becoming some tautological circle jerk if it doesn’t translate to profit, no matter how cool it is. I worry more about how techbros are setting the bridge on fire behind us before we find out where it goes.
I liked AlecSadler’s answer from this thread. If you weren’t already comfortable with doing stats in something like python+scipy.stats then now might be a good time. With the pandas library it’s supposed to be a little like R. (ask me for more details if you want)
Sorry for the half-ass answer.
Thanks for your perspective. It helps to get some hope that software development skills might be still needed in the future.