3 ms·
yes and it should have been a long time ago. You need to see AI's as frameworks and then we will go from there. No job will be safe and thats a good thing. Peo
by jhoelzel 4y ago
yes and it should have been a long time ago. You need to see AI's as frameworks and then we will go from there.
No job will be safe and thats a good thing. People value themselfs to highly and i bet from experience all of us know at least one guy who could have been easily replaced with a shell script.
That is not meant in a way that that person is not able to do other things or is impaired in anyway, buutttt imagine how many jobs in general could be replaced by very small shell scripts. Coding aint gonnna be any different.
- danielvaughn 4y agoNot disagreeing with your experience, but I personally can’t think of anyone who could have been replaced by a shell script. Although, my work history is mostly startups. I’d imagine there is some cruft at larger companies.
- mdorazio 4y ago“Some cruft” is quite an understatement. Years ago a large client was moving HQ locations and expected to lose about 20% of its staff in the process. My team was tasked with documenting business processes for different departments. Basically what people did on a regular basis, the tools they used, inputs and outputs with other departments, etc. Easily 15% of the roles (not processes, the full job) could have been replaced with some basic scripts and off the shelf tools. Entire sub-departments were basically cruising doing as little as possible to collect a paycheck, mostly copy-pasting stuff between spreadsheets, Word docs, and PowerPoint presentations.
- MattPalmer1086 4y agoInteresting you mention people who could have been replaced by a shell script, but presumably weren't? So can we conclude that if coding won't be any different, there will still be a lot of humans who could be replaced by an AI, but won't be?