3 ms·

> What would be different about 2023? Why would it be the same? Think about it from first principles instead of assuming that what happened in the past will ke

by jstx1 4y ago

> What would be different about 2023? Why would it be the same? Think about it from first principles instead of assuming that what happened in the past will keep happening in the future. If there's a ceiling to the demand for programming work and we're near that ceiling, and you then increase the productivity of all programmers, the number of jobs will have to go down. Is there a ceiling for demand and are we near it? I don't know. But the argument that stackoverflow and search made things better and so it goes for GPT-4 isn't thought out very well.

senko 4y ago
That's not first principles, that's a bunch of assumptions: > If there's a ceiling to the demand for programming work and we're near that ceiling, and you then increase the productivity of all programmers, Look at the history of civilization. Throughout millenia, we've advanced tremendously but still the vast majority of people across all (current) industries have jobs.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
chubot 4y ago
Yeah I'm not saying we should blindly extrapolate, but as I said, I see a big "fixed pie" fallacy in the opposite view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Just to put something out there, I think LLMs will be something like Google. I remember when Google started improving a lot in 2003-2004, a coworker wrote a blog post "Is Google God?" People thought it was conscious. It was absolutely revolutionary. It created huge amounts of wealth for itself and others But clearly it hit a limit. It wouldn't surprised me if LLMs were huge boon for 5 or 10 years, and they hit a fundamental wall, stagnate, and then we repeat the cycle.
- TechBro8615 4y ago
  I agree with this, and LLMs seem pretty clearly the next step after search engines, in terms of intelligence augmentation. The parallels are too obvious to ignore. Search engines didn't replace humans, but they made us better at what we do, and let us do it with less effort. Also, librarians still have jobs.

by jstx1 4y ago

senko 4y ago

That's not first principles, that's a bunch of assumptions: > If there's a ceiling to the demand for programming work and we're near that ceiling, and you then increase the productivity of all programmers, Look at the history of civilization. Throughout millenia, we've advanced tremendously but still the vast majority of people across all (current) industries have jobs.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

chubot 4y ago

Yeah I'm not saying we should blindly extrapolate, but as I said, I see a big "fixed pie" fallacy in the opposite view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy Just to put something out there, I think LLMs will be something like Google. I remember when Google started improving a lot in 2003-2004, a coworker wrote a blog post "Is Google God?" People thought it was conscious. It was absolutely revolutionary. It created huge amounts of wealth for itself and others But clearly it hit a limit. It wouldn't surprised me if LLMs were huge boon for 5 or 10 years, and they hit a fundamental wall, stagnate, and then we repeat the cycle.

TechBro8615 4y ago
I agree with this, and LLMs seem pretty clearly the next step after search engines, in terms of intelligence augmentation. The parallels are too obvious to ignore. Search engines didn't replace humans, but they made us better at what we do, and let us do it with less effort. Also, librarians still have jobs.