4 ms·
Everything we have seen so far seems to indicate that you get maximum productivity when you pair human and AI, rather than having either on its own. What that m
by hetman 5y ago
Everything we have seen so far seems to indicate that you get maximum productivity when you pair human and AI, rather than having either on its own. What that means in practice is that (at least until someone actually develops GAI) aspects of programming may be automatable but you'll always want to keep a human in the loop somewhere to get maximum productivity. This should be true until society's need for programmers becomes saturated... but since programming is essentially itself automation, it's hard to imagine that need subsiding any time soon.
- beebmam 5y agoI'm not so sold on your premise. I think there are trade-offs when using AI for software dev, like with copilot.
- iratewizard 5y agoCopilot is simply a poor application of it. Searching the internet for a stack exchange answer is a rudimentary example of pairing an AI with a human. Modern chess GMs use stockfish to study positions. Maybe a future version of that will be more similar to stockfish for code you're writing or problems you're debugging.
- bpodgursky 5y agoMy main problem with this theory is that so many people want it to be true; very hard for me to see anyone doing dispassionate analysis of whether humans will be valuable in the loop long-term.
- rytill 5y agoWhat do you mean long-term? In the short and medium term (5y), humans being in the loop is highly likely to be valuable, as you seem to agree with. Long term is very difficult to predict. AGI changes everything instantly. If you’re saying “it seems like people just want humans to be valuable, and the human race’s thinking seems very anthropocentric”, I definitely agree. It’s hard to separate a person’s inherent need to be important from dispassionate analysis in general.
- Florin_Andrei 5y agoWith AGI looming at the horizon, any long term predictions are baseless. The event horizon is somewhere at +20 years.
- singingfish 5y agoYes, AI (or even better what I like to call Artificial Stupidity - naive implementations that get you 90% there) are a great cognitive prosthetic, but in my experience should not be relied on.
- Areading314 5y agoA better name for AI is "pattern recognition" because thats what it is. There is nothing intelligent about it.
- wruza 5y agoWhat is intelligent about natural pattern recognition? /s Sarcasm aside, your definition is too low-level, as if we called brains just braincells. Pattern recognition is a building block of AI like a logic gate is a building block of a CPU.
- ClumsyPilot 5y agoIf you studied formal logic, you understand what logic gates do and what a CPU can do. We don't understand brains or braincells - how many operations per cecond can a braincell do? What type of operations? How many bytes does it store? We don't know. Can we replace a single braincell with a chip and get them to act the same?
- wruza 5y agoLikely not, but that was not my point either, it was just an non-stretchable analogy. AI is not a single network usually, it is a pipeline of networks of different kinds, see e.g. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P1IcaBn3ej0 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P1IcaBn3ej0 (seek to 1:35 for beginning of an architecture overview). You can’t call it “just pattern matching” without fetching it too far.
- Areading314 5y agook, its an algorithm that makes use of pattern matching
- fulafel 5y agoA lot of the currently mainstream advanced compiler and programming language tech was called AI when first developed.