Microsoft execs worry AI will eat entry level coding jobs
- Reference: 1771869702
- News link: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2026/02/23/microsoft_ai_entry_level_russinovich_hanselman/
- Source link:
The [1]paper , Redefining the Engineering Profession for AI, is based on several assumptions, the first of which is that agentic coding assistants "give senior engineers an AI boost... while imposing an AI drag on early-in-career (EiC) developers to steer, verify and integrate AI output."
In an earlier [2]podcast on the subject, Russinovich said this basic premise – that AI is increasing productivity only for senior developers while reducing it for juniors – is a "hot topic in all our customer engagements... they all say they see it at their companies."
[3]
The problem is that AI agents can claim success when in fact the code is bad, with issues such as:
Significant bugs
Implementing inefficient algorithms
Duplicating common code throughout the codebase
Dismissing crashes and hangs as not relevant
Leaving debug code behind
Making code work for specific tests but not generally
The paper cites a race condition that an agent attempted to fix by inserting a delay in the code with a Thread.Sleep, which at best might disguise the problem. Only an engineer familiar with synchronization code has the confidence to "point out the agent's mistakes," the paper states.
The snag is that the natural action of organizations observing this issue is to hire fewer EiC developers. A [4]paper from Harvard University , referenced by Rusinovich and Hanselman, studied the impact of generative AI adoption on job postings, and concluded that "junior employment declines sharply in adopting firms relative to non-adopters, while senior employment remains largely unchanged."
[5]
[6]
The logical outcome is that "if organizations focus only on short-term efficiency – hiring those who can already direct AI – they risk hollowing out the next generation of technical leaders," Russinovich and Hanselman state in the paper.
The two execs argue that large companies must continue hiring EiC developers, accepting that they initially reduce productivity, and make guiding and training them an explicit goal. In a "preceptor-based organization," senior engineers pair with EiC developers to direct AI coding agents.
[7]
Another suggestion is that coding assistants could have an "EiC mode" in which the agent does the coaching – although given the kinds of agentic mistakes Russinovich and Hanselman identify, this might not always work as intended.
In their podcast, the two executives also state that universities do not have the right model for teaching computer science to undergraduates. "You need [some] classes where using AI is considered cheating," said Russinovich.
The paper is presented as opinion from Russinovich and Hanselman, not as official Microsoft research. "While AI is boosting software development, examples of frontier coding agents exhibiting intern-like behaviors demonstrate their limitations," the pair state, reflecting a more nuanced view than that given by the relentless promotion of AI from their company.
[8]
It's not clear if Microsoft itself has caught up with these recommendations. In May last year, the company revealed [9]plans to reduce staff with software engineering suffering the largest cuts, and in their podcast, Russinovich remarked "we're starting a pilot on this at Microsoft." Hanselman was asked on LinkedIn whether senior engineers will now be assessed on their human as well as their product impact, to which he replied: "That is our goal."
Meanwhile, things are moving fast in the space. AI coding agents are likely to improve, and according to a recent [10]workshop on AI development hosted by Thoughtworks, junior developers have some advantages when using AI, as they have fewer preconceptions about how coding should be done. ®
Get our [11]Tech Resources
[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3779312
[2] https://shows.acast.com/scott-and-mark-learn-to/episodes/scott-mark-learn-to-the-ai-productivity-trap-senior-boost-ju
[3] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=2&c=2aZzcEz6bEVXH9gHcNHkWoQAAApU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D2%26raptor%3Dcondor%26pos%3Dtop%26test%3D0
[4] https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5425555
[5] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZzcEz6bEVXH9gHcNHkWoQAAApU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[6] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZzcEz6bEVXH9gHcNHkWoQAAApU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[7] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=4&c=44aZzcEz6bEVXH9gHcNHkWoQAAApU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D4%26raptor%3Dfalcon%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[8] https://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/jump?co=1&iu=/6978/reg_software/devops&sz=300x50%7C300x100%7C300x250%7C300x251%7C300x252%7C300x600%7C300x601&tile=3&c=33aZzcEz6bEVXH9gHcNHkWoQAAApU&t=ct%3Dns%26unitnum%3D3%26raptor%3Deagle%26pos%3Dmid%26test%3D0
[9] https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/16/microsofts_axe_software_developers/
[10] https://www.devclass.com/development/2026/02/21/should-there-be-a-new-manifesto-for-ai-development/4091612
[11] https://whitepapers.theregister.com/
Re: "Worry?" Nope, that's BS
Exactly.
Re: "Worry?" Nope, that's BS
Business leaders are only looking towards their stock price in the current quarter. There's no long term thinking at all. Technology is constantly changing but many corporations went to contractors so they could swap technologies without having to pay for training. Short term thinking.
They will do the same here. Avoiding hiring EIC developers will cut labor costs now. And as you say, expect advances in AI to reduce demand for senior coders as they retire. The faster the better.
"junior developers have some advantages when using AI, as they have fewer preconceptions about how coding should be done"
Preconceptions such as it should be done right? Actually, I'd hope that's a preconception they do have.
Assuming the sentiment is genuine
Sure there's a phrase about Bolts, Horses and stable door somewhere.
Well... duh?
The only reason I know LLMs generate bad code is because I have
The entire value that LLM sellers claim is "cut headcount" buy at the moment the only headcount it could possibly remove it the graduate level codes at the the likes of Infi, Accenture etc.
Without having expertise in doing something yourself how can you be sure someone or something did a good job
[/rant]
Re: Well... duh?
Exactly this.
And you get to
Take this away and we're a lot further down the road to absolute code idiocracy.
Re: Well... duh?
Without having expertise in doing something yourself how can you be sure someone or something did a good job
The long standing HR hiring dilemma. Somehow I suspect it will be handled in the same way.
Circles
When an AI, even the almighty Opus 4.6, encounters a problem that is not well documented on the internet and therefore was not part of its training data, it will run circles around the developer without ever actually implementing what the developer asks. It will hack, tweak, and adjust irrelevant things, but never truly solve the problem.
This is because the model has no real understanding of what the developer is doing. It only predicts the next token.
The whole idea of prompting is that you must phrase things in a way that nudges the model towards predicting what you want. You cannot simply say “draw me an owl” if it has never seen an owl before. But if it has seen feathers, you can slowly guide it from there. By the time you finally get the owl, you could probably have drawn it yourself.
Re: Circles
Yes, and even the "good" output is very rarely up to my standards of production-quality. AI is still a very helpful assistant in many cases, but it's just that: an assistant.
It's not ready to be a worker yet, and I don't think we're anywhere near as close as a lot of people want / assume us to be. I think some fundamental problems need to be overcome first, and the time spans for solving problems of that magnitude tend to be measured in decades. That doesn't mean it won't happen tomorrow; it just means that it's lottery-odds unlikely.
Re: Circles
Perhaps the answer is to have a model trained only on the corpus of code that you personally have written. Then it will behave according to your standards instead of the entirety of Stack Overflow.
This is not a complicated problem to understand. Some of the basic threads.
- LLM training is dependent on pre-existing knowledge. No people, no new knowledge.
- As people retire and are replaced with AI, this means, again, no new knowledge. No new knowledge means that you are creating a knowledge ceiling.
- AI isn't "actual intelligence". It's an output of known data that can handle the imprecise input of human beings. It's only as good as both the input and the output.
If it gets implemented as another productivity tool then it has a realistic future. Otherwise, it's just a plan to fail.
'AI' is undermining the industry ... while you kill off the future skills ... day by day !!!
"AI is increasing productivity only for senior developers while reducing it for juniors – is a "hot topic in all our customer engagements... they all say they see it at their companies.""
This is exactly what has been reported in the various stories in 'El Reg' over the last 6 months at least.
'AI' can help the experienced devs because they know what is 'good' & 'Bad' code based on real knowledge.
New devs using 'AI' tools will not know when their level of knowledge/experience is actually a 'stick to beat their own backs'.
'AI' is very good at 'plausible' because the 'interWebs' is full of 'plausible' but bad code.
It is not deliberately there trying to cause issues, it is simply some people will not see the issues with their code yet publish for all to see and for 'AI' to 'learn' from.
Analogy:
No matter how hard I try, I will not be able to teach someone to speak good conversational French IF I cannot speak conversational French myself.
The 'AI' is making the 'best efforts' to do what it is asked BUT IF I cannot works at a higher level I will not see 'ALL' the issues with the answers.
This is exactly what is happening now ... lots of people with limited skills trying to 'bootstrap' their skills without the ability to see when they are learning bad ideas or NOT seeing the flaws because the 'AI' code is beyond their own abilities.
'AI' looks like magic BUT it is actually digging a deeper and deeper hole as we are deskilling the new devs as the older more highly skilled devs are priced out of the market OR see where the wind is blowing and are jumping ship before they are pushed.!!!
:)
"Worry?" Nope, that's BS
Microsoft isn't "worried" that AI will eat entry-level coding jobs. They hope it does so they won't have to pay those coders.
They also hope it advances fast enough to eat the senior coders before the lack of up-and-coming replacements becomes too big a problem.