5 ms·
You don't need to fire all software engineers. You could let's say replace 75% of them with GPT.
by cypress66 4y ago
You don't need to fire all software engineers. You could let's say replace 75% of them with GPT.
- wil421 4y agoThose software engineers are going to be very overloaded. Will they be troubleshooting 100% of the code with only 25% of the staff? GPT might become a tool in our arsenal but not a replacement. It needs to be able to say I don’t know before it spits out nonsense.
- antibasilisk 4y agoIt takes fewer people to maintain a system than it does to build it. You do not need a team of 7 engineers to stick around to read logs and code, you need exactly one, and in all likelihood he's going to spend most of his time watching YouTube because he's so out of practice that if anything was wrong the AI would most likely find it before him, and when he does find something he's going to just ask the AI to fix it instead of exerting the mental effort to do it himself.
- wil421 4y agoI’ll take the Pepsi Challenge on GPT-4 replacing SEs. It’s the same take I’ve had on self-driving. Outside of very niche situations it’s never going mainstream. The only people in the short term who are going to greatly benefit from GPT coding are people selling tutorials for using GPT to code.
- gptgpp 4y ago[dead]
- recuter 4y agoYou could replace 75% of them with a rubber duck. Soon you might replace 22.5% of them with GPT.
- mr_toad 4y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- wil421 4y agoIf you want to do a $100 bet I’ll bet you in 5 years that won’t happen. I’ll even take it further, I’ll bet you $100 a year for the next five years it won’t make a huge difference. I’ll pay you in full early if it happens and you can wait to pay me in full after 5 years. I dislike betting money at all and I think $100 is fair.