Yes, the biomedical world needs to go through the same boom that tech went through in the last 20 years.
The problem is accessibility. Tech grew largely because of how accessible the technology is. Biomedical research is still very difficult to get into, and as a result seriously curtails the potential progress we as a society could make.
I don't know what the solution is but there's got to be an easier way to tinker, test, explore, and play around with biomedical things (cells, viruses, etc.).
Ideally it would be a purely software world where we replicate everything down to the DNA level so that you can test and play around with potential solutions...
> Yes, the biomedical world needs to go through the same boom that tech went through in the last 20 years.
Why do you think that isn’t happening? So many comments here make broad claims about fields where the poster isn’t familiar. Being a programmer does not make one knowledgeable about other specialized fields
Biomedical research in the US has taken an absolute nose-dive several times over the past decade or two. This was my field for the past 20 years, so I'm fairly familiar.
It requires enormous capital investment and a very, very long time to turn out meaningful results, so it's only available to those with corporate-depth pockets or government subsidies. It also requires a broad and deep skill set.
With the FDA, USDA, NIH, CDC and DoEd all being gutted, the subsidies are gone. Academia can no longer support a huge swath of biomedical research.
> US has taken an absolute nose-dive several times over the past decade or two
This is also my field... and if the nose-dive is what has delivered in these past two decades RNA-seq, induced pluripotent stem cell generation, CRISPR-mediated genome therapies, CAR-T therapy, single-cell RNA and DNA profiling, spatial transcriptomics, targeted GLP- and incretin-modulation therapies? Then that's a wonderful nosedive.
The capital investment has always been true if you want to do R1 research. But you don't have to do that at all! There's also Oxford Nanopore, tons of open data through NCBI and other resources, more open papers than ever.
> It also requires a broad and deep skill set.
Yes. Like anything, being good takes time.
> Academia can no longer support a huge swath of biomedical research.
Maybe. I think there will be money for things that affect the rich (incurable cancer, longevity) and for things that are sexy to the unsophisticated (CZI Biohub 'OpenCell'). But there is money in this, so I don't think academia (to wit, people who know how to do research) will go away, just will change.
I agree that being a programmer doesn't make you an expert at everything, but OP brought up a good point. Tech is a lot more accessible than other fields. It would be nice if I could pivot into other fields as easily as someone could pivot into tech.
Aside from going to college for many years, there's really no other way to break into the medical field. College is expensive and quite daunting to many (myself included), which is a shame because I'd really like to contribute more to humanity than moving pixels around on a screen and helping businesses with their data problems.
> Yes, the biomedical world needs to go through the same boom that tech went through in the last 20 years
We are going through one right now, just not so visibly. Many forms of cancer that would have killed you quickly at the turn of the century are now controllable, if not treatable. Coming up with a safe and working vaccine for a novel virus just a year after it emerges would be unthinkable 20 years ago. HIV went from a nasty death sentence to something you take one pill a day to keep control of within my lifetime.
We just don't like to talk about it because we don't like to talk about death and life stuffs.
What is funny about this accessibility and regulation point of view is I remember around 2021 and 2022 there is a hive mind of tech people who were paranoid about all the novel virus research, "gain of function" shit and want to preemptively ban it all. The same people who decry any regulation imposed on tech. Go figure.
"the biomedical world needs to go through the same boom that tech went through in the last 20 years."
Not going to happen with all the regulation. Plus, I think half of us techies got into it for games and boobs (bypass parental controls). Not a lot of that same adolescent motivation in that field.
Yeah, but the culture surrounding computers now isn't the same as when whenever you grew up. The last few decades of tech didn't have ChatGPT to contend with. These days, going into medicine looks a lot more future proof than getting a CS degree.
A big reason is clinical trials. They take time, they are expensive, and there isn’t another good way to determine an intervention’s safety and effectiveness.
What's happened in software / computing in the last 20 years that's good? Imo it could be argued that overall the user experience has gotten worse. Dead internet theory, enshittification.
* The web is pretty much dead. Time Berners Lee's ideals certainly are.
* Computing is dominated by completely evil megacorps.
* They are making a concerted effort to make people as tech-illiterate as possible and also make universal computing illegal.
* Theres been years where GPU's were being price gouged, 1st by crypto bros, then NFT bros, now LLM bros.
* Cant even buy RAM now.
* They put e-fuses into hardware now, comes right out of the factory as ready made e-waste that cant be repurposed.
* The biggest platforms, Android and iOS, are walled garden, locked down, corporate nightmare worlds. And there is practically no alternative.
* Social media is making people depressed and also very easy to manipulate en-masse by anyone willing to pay.
* Moore's law stopped and software bloat overtook performance gains.
* VR might have been cool but it was pre-enshittified in its nascent stages. Freakin' facebook bought Oculus before they had released a single headset.
Yeah that is good, there are some good things, but I think on average the computer user experience is worse.. In the 80's and 90's with the rise of microcomputers and the net and the web and Linux, things were so utopian, things just seemed to keep getting cooler and computing was empowering people.
Maybe not a million, although having a few million, even just in a bank account earning moderate interest (4.5% PA) is easily enough to retire forever.
I do mostly cloud modernization architecture work and use Claude Code daily. But even I’m burning out on it. Not sure if that’s my current job, GenAI, or that I’d rather be playing poker.
Wait, you're upset because they used AI to answer a question they weren't expecting, and couldn't answer? Yet, you used AI as part of your upfront research?
What would you have preferred? They could have just said, "I'm sorry, I don't know the answer to that, please let me get back to you" but instead they tried to get an answer for you.
I think it's perfectly fine for the author to use AI in their research process, and it sounds like they weren't relying on it exclusively.
So they've already asked AI its opinion on the topic. They're explicitly reaching out to an expert because they've exhausted their ability to move forward on their own (even with AI).
If the expert just asking the same question to the AI and returning the answer directly - that's what OP has just done, and it actually is a waste of time. They're looking for insight, not just another quick response from an LLM.
I would imagine that letting the expert know ahead of time so they can research an answer (perhaps with the assistance of AI) would be a good pattern. But it has to be guided by the expert's knowledge - that's the whole point. Using AI is fine, and probably even good if it's being guided by a wise hand, but it isn't sufficient on its own, and bouncing answers directly back from an AI with no refinement is not useful, and dare I say it is somewhat insulting.
These were expert office hours for API modeling. The company has certain requirements and standards - this team is supposed to live and breathe them. The question wasn't that advanced. Performing a basic AI prompt in the authoritative expert office hours is not the answer.
The right approach would be to say: I do not know. Let me discuss / research with my colleagues and get back to you.
And to be clear: I manually read and studied the official guiding documents without AI. Then I used a separate AI setup to more effectively research a larger array of additional internal sources, wikis, etc. I also reviewed the code from other teams / projects to infer any patterns that could apply to my project, so I came prepared with examples for discussion.
> The right approach would be to say: I do not know. Let me discuss / research with my colleagues and get back to you.
I suppose that would be very close to "you've come to the experts for advice and I probably shouldn't be here because I'm not one of them", which nobody wants to admit.
For many, an honest look at themselves would end with "I don't contribute anything". They have the opposite of impostor syndrome - they don't belong, but they feel like they should, and AI helps them pretend.
> No pure managers: Every leader at Coinbase must also be a strong and active individual contributor. Managers should be like player-coaches, getting their hands dirty alongside their teams.
This has always been the case where I work, long before AI.
> This has always been the case where I work, long before AI.
And surely the place you work hired with this in mind. Many places have not, and yet now expect PMs who haven’t coded in years, or in many cases not at all, to contribute to their products’ codebases.
It was the HQ of French company, Alstom's French headquarters is located in Saint-Ouen-sur-Seine, near Paris, at 48 rue Albert Dhalenne, 93400 Saint-Ouen, France. The display shows original props from Luc Besson’s 1997 movie The Fifth Element — including Korben Dallas’s famous yellow flying taxi and the blue-and-silver NYPD police car. Alstom keeps these pieces on display as a fun tribute to their shared focus on city mobility.
This is the KEY difference between people who are willing to adopt this technology and those who aren't.
If you are able to view your job as simply a pursuit of a craft, more power to you.
The reality is likely that over time your employer will realize you are slower than every other engineer, and that your enjoyment of the craft is actually just you being an old slow developer.
The "race" here is the race with every other developer out there. They're getting on bikes, and starting to pull away ... what are YOU going to do?
When are we going to realize these CEOs are just old slow extremely expensive humans? I want to see them replaced with AI as well. I have absolutely no doubt AI can manage a company better than they do.
I love posts like this. AI is easily the most disruptive thing to hit our industry in over a decade and it feels like one of those "this changes everything" moments. Reading how it's impacting others is cathartic and helps shape my own understanding.
Here are some thoughts I have from reading this article:
> The AI can’t “see” the output, so some responsive refinements were just not correct. Within one CSS rule block there were redundant declarations.
This 1,000%.
Vibe coding has its issue and for me personally, frontend polish, responsiveness, and overall quality is the #1 most glaring of them that simply re-prompting often can't solve.
Even with the ability to screen shot your UI that hasn't solved things like glitchy animations. If you want to do anything even remotely above a junior level like scroll animations, page transitions, etc. good luck. AI will certainly try to do it for you, but inevitably it will not work perfectly and you will need to manually refine or even re-write code. When the code base isn't yours, that makes these re-writes a lot less fun.
> The guilty conscience at the same time, like I was cheating. I realized that when I move on like this, my project will never truly feel like my own.
I've wrestled with this over the last year, and still do to some extent. I'm trying to shift my perspective and envision myself as a brand new developer maybe 16 or 17 years of age. Would I think this isn't my work? I doubt it. I'd probably just (correctly) assume that this is the state of the art, this is how you do it.
Unfortunately this doesn't fix a bigger problem... I just don't enjoy vibe coding as a craft. There's something special about sitting down in the morning with your coffee and taking on a difficult programming problem. You start writing some code, the solutions start to formalize in your mind, there's a strong back-and-forth effect where as you code, the concepts crystalize further... small wins fuel a wonderful dopamine hit experience... intellisense completions, compilation completions, page refreshes, etc. are now all replaced with dull moments often waiting for the agent to return its response, which you now read.
> I’m curious (and a little bit scared) to see where we will go from here. I hope that in the end I can be part of a community that values craftsmanship, individuality and honest, high-quality work.
I really hope so too... But speaking honestly, I think this ship is sailing away quite quickly.
Time is money, and it always has been this way. Very few organizations can afford the luxury of time when building, designing, etc. I see no chance for this genie to go back in the bottle, and I believe it has (and will continue) to fundamentally change the nature of our work.
Over time as these models improve, there's a chance it could dramatically reduce the overall need for developers... It will start with low level teams as we're seeing already, but could expand.
I have been saying this to everyone -- what's your exit strategy?
I'm not saying you need to panic, but you need a plan for what happens if / when salaries tank dramatically. I hate to be "that guy" but in life I've found expecting the worst, isn't always a bad thing. Keep your mood up, prepare for the worst possible outcome, and be pleasantly surprised if that's not what happens.
> Unfortunately this doesn't fix a bigger problem... I just don't enjoy vibe coding as a craft. There's something special about sitting down in the morning with your coffee and taking on a difficult programming problem. You start writing some code, the solutions start to formalize in your mind, there's a strong back-and-forth effect where as you code, the concepts crystalize further... small wins fuel a wonderful dopamine hit experience... intellisense completions, compilation completions, page refreshes, etc. are now all replaced with dull moments often waiting for the agent to return its response, which you now read.
Agreed. For me, LLMs don't just reduce the kind of active learning and problem solving that make my job enjoyable; they change and replace it with a "skill" that barely merits the name. "Learning how to use AI" means learning how to use a product. That's worthless. It teaches nothing of durable value.
I'm also not in any way interested in using these tools to learn anything else. They can print out as much information as you want about this or that or that topic, and even if it's correct 100% of the time, you remain a passive consumer of information that the tool is chewing, digesting, regurgitating, and spitting into your mouth.
On the other hand, I'm also profoundly technically and intellectually bored. I can solve all of the problems I encounter in the codebase I work on. I can diagnose issues, refine build, shorten test pipelines, and mentor junior developer -- and I cannot imagine doing this for the rest of my working life. My brain will liquify and dribble out my ears long before I reach retirement age.
If what I were doing were more interesting and technically challenging, maybe I'd feel differently, but if LLMs kill off the kind of programming I do, I'm not sure anybody should grieve, particular if its death sends reasonably smart, curious people to fields where their efforts produce something of greater, or actual, value -- and doesn't wind up lining the pockets of the next generation of insufferable, bs-shoveling "thought leaders."
> I have been saying this to everyone -- what's your exit strategy?
Personally? I'm already preparing to sell our house. I'll keep my current job for as long as I can or for as long as makes sense, and then I'll go back to school for nursing, and become a psychiatric nurse practitioner.
There are also fundamentally different acceptance criteria for a bridge vs a website. Failure modes differ. Consequences of failure are nowhere near the same, so risk tolerance is adjusted accordingly. Perhaps true "engineering" really boils down to risk management... is what you're building so potentially destructive that it requires extremely careful thought and risk management? Engineering. If what you're building can fail, and really cause no harm, that's just building.
The problem is accessibility. Tech grew largely because of how accessible the technology is. Biomedical research is still very difficult to get into, and as a result seriously curtails the potential progress we as a society could make.
I don't know what the solution is but there's got to be an easier way to tinker, test, explore, and play around with biomedical things (cells, viruses, etc.).
Ideally it would be a purely software world where we replicate everything down to the DNA level so that you can test and play around with potential solutions...
reply