9 ms·

An interview with Steve Wozniak by Jessica Livingston cured my AI anxiety

100 points by vslira 4y ago

gitfan86 4y ago
This is great. The world will change dramatically, and it is OK to be afraid of that and the unknowns, but the best approach is to take advantage of all the good things that are coming and do not spend too much time being sad about the things that are going away.
- jacquesm 4y ago
  That depends on what the good things are that are coming and what the things are that are going away. And it also depends on the bad things that are coming, and what new things are going to come. You are making an ethical argument based on utility, those two are not the best in combinations like that, the ethical argument should be made on an ethical foundation, not on the temporary outcome. It's interesting how one of the most obvious problem spaces, the one of ethical reasoning is one that is least amendable to pure logic without adding a very large dose of humanity. Example: killing is bad. But killing to save someone from endless misery (called Euthanasia) can be a good thing. But it still requires - where I live - two doctors to come to the conclusion that someone is beyond medical help and suffering needlessly. And then there needs to be a clear declaration on the capability of the person making the request that they are able to make such a request in the first place. Ethics isn't simple, even in 'simple' cases.
  - gitfan86 4y ago
    It isn't a matter of Ethics. Ethics implies that I have control of the situation (Do I kill the person who wants to die or not) or (Do I stop AI or not) I am not in a position to decide to stop technological progress. So I am choosing control what I can, which is my attitude.
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Those that are in control of that progress and whether or not they release certain capabilities to the general public are the ones that will have to deal with the ethical bits, and society as a whole can do so as well. Politicians can make laws based on ethics.
      - gitfan86 4y ago
        Do you cure cancer if it means that 100 million people will lose their jobs?
        newshorts 4y ago
        Yes. It will be painful for some folks to transition to doing something else for sure. I know you are just using random numbers but 10 million people die per year. The benefit would outweigh the cost.
        jacquesm 4y ago
        Good question. So what's your answer and why?
        xarope 4y ago
        Broken windows fallacy. If 100m highly competent people were involved in managing cancer, and we cured cancer, these 100m highly competent people could then turn their attention and skills to something else important. There are plenty of health care crises in the world
yedava 4y ago
I really doubt if AI will have any impact on developer jobs. If I want to build an alternative to TurboTax, how much can AI help? I like to think of software as automating a large number of bizarre corner cases which are a result of us being human. And corner cases are what AI usually fails at.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  > How much can AI help? In 2019, this is sci-fi In 2023, it can help engineers understand the complexity of taxes, translate some tax rules into code, help refine edge cases and fix mistakes. In 2030, ??? Things move insanely fast lately. I would not bet on anything.
  - xwdv 4y ago
    People seem to assume tech progress is always some linear or exponential thing where things just keep getting better. They can’t imagine we could also just hit a plateau and have no progress for a decade until some other major breakthrough happens. AI art is hitting a plateau or has hit a plateau. Progress came quickly for months but nowadays each update is just a bit better details with more resolution and better hands. That’s it. If you have AI anxiety, just read my comment history.
    - heavyset_go 4y ago
      Is there a name for this fallacy? Because I see it a lot.
      - xwdv 4y ago
        Maybe whatever you call “past performance doesn’t imply future results” or something.
      - antondd 4y ago
        (Roughly) Amara's Law: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”
dimal 4y ago
This is roughly how I’m starting to think about it. This may be doomsday or it may be an amazing opportunity. I don’t know. If it’s doomsday, it doesn’t matter whether I act as if it’s doomsday or if I look for opportunities. Either way I’m fucked. But if I act as if it’s doomsday, but it’s actually an opportunity, I’ll miss all the possible opportunities that come up. So I don’t see any downside in looking at this as an opportunity. I may as well. And once I started to look at it that way, I started seeing all these potential ways to use AI to do what I do now, only better and more easily. So I’m going to keep looking for opportunities and going after them. If I’m going down, I’m going down swinging.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- jmann99999 4y ago
  Pascal's wager for a different time and place. I have never thought about it that way. That's interesting.
  - meghan_rain 4y ago
    I keep seeing lots of parallels between believing in God and blackbox AI systems. Especially in forums like lesswrong. Ironic, because most people there would be offended if you told them they are religious.
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      I’m the same, I really think “AI” worship is a new type of religion. People quite honestly believe we’re about to meet God like intelligence and inherit eternal life from such a meeting. I guess anything is possible but have I heard this before ?
  - latexr 4y ago
    Pascal’s wager is full of holes[1]. I agree with you that these ideas are similar, and it’s because of that that your parent comment deserves scrutiny rather than blind acceptance. For example: > If it’s doomsday, it doesn’t matter whether I act as if it’s doomsday or if I look for opportunities. Either way I’m fucked. There are different degrees of “being fucked”. Not everyone is disadvantaged the same in a doomsday scenario: it does not literally happen in a day and it does not necessarily spell doom for those who caused it or are outside their sphere of influence. It follows that someone who looked for alternatives rather than fully embracing the system might stand a better chance. Furthermore, a scenario which is not yet inevitable may become so because people think it is inevitable and give up or act in a way that reinforces it. That’s the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Note I’m not advocating a specific approach to this case. My aim is to highlight that while the initial argument seems logically airtight, it is deeply flawed and you shouldn’t take it as the true solution. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager
crop_rotation 4y ago
I think the article ends up makes the point in favour of AI anxiety: > In particular, I started to realize that every little thing that we decide not to do as a company could have been done, If every single company has more development bandwidth available, then at some multiple it would start driving demand and then wages down quickly. The multiple doesn't have to come just by AI improvements, as a lot of non developers can start using the AI to implement things. It is very good if you intend to found a company, you have multiplied the things your company can do by leaps and bounds. Not so good for salaries developers.
- yosito 4y ago
  In other words, it's a good time to found a company. It always was a good time, but this is a prime opportunity.
jacquesm 4y ago
How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.
jossclimb 4y ago
Something else that frames this conversation well is to consider the experience for a non programmer, inspecting the AI results to some query. We view this all through very adept and skilled eyes that know how to code an how to read code. Imagine you don't know anything about programming... * You don't know what a function is (or a method / class) * You don't even understand variables, static types, bools/ints/strings * You have no idea about an entry point such as main, how returns work * You have no idea about OOO, organising code over multiple files * You don't know what a socket is, you don't understand I/O, file handling To top it all, code looks alien to you, you have no idea how to read it. The only individuals who would be able to bridge the knowledge above, would likely become programmers anyhow.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  The biggest effort when I write code is to make it readable for other developers. The day where non tech people start using AI to produce non critical software and start interacting with code as a black box, simply telling the AI what they want and pointing the edge cases to correct, how much simpler development will become for AIs?
- czx4f4bd 4y ago
  Adding to your list: * You don't have experience with basic technical decision making -- e.g. why would you pick Java vs. C vs. Python vs. Go vs. any other language, and how would that decision change if you were building a web app vs. mobile app vs. embedded software? * You don't have a familiar set of tools and established preferences for the aforementioned decisions -- i.e. if an experienced programmer is building a web app, there are probably specific languages and tools they're inclined to reach for. * You don't know about application deployment and productionization. How do you get your project somewhere people can use it? You don't know about deploying code to servers or running it in Docker or K8s or PaaS. * You don't have the practiced logical thought process for things like algorithm design, debugging, figuring out user bug reports, identifying edge cases, predicting user behavior, etc. * You don't have the experience with things that experienced programmers find "obvious" -- e.g. if you're building a web app, you need an authentication system, registration flow, password reset, etc. I think the main effort to address this will be LLM-driven low-code solutions. Imagine something like Airtable, but with an integrated LLM assistant that can make changes to your app and write code to implement business rules and automation. This gets rid of problems like choosing your tech stack, deployment, etc. and it minimizes the amount of code the LLM has to create. I imagine this will have effects comparable to those of spreadsheet software: non-programmers will be able to build custom tools with a newfound ease and some will end up learning a lot of programming skills in the process. And, much like with spreadsheets, these tools will end up becoming business critical in unexpected ways and will turn out to be a huge pain in the ass to maintain. They'll find that parts of their business logic don't work as expected and that they can't figure out how to prompt the LLM to get it to implement the rules the right way. The users of these tools will basically have to learn some programming anyway or they'll have to hire experienced programmers to figure the problems out for them.
blueblimp 4y ago
The key quote: > [Wozniak] was overjoyed when he learned that the skill that put so much effort into suddenly became massively easier. He wasn't worried about not being able to earn an above-average salary from this anymore, he was happy about all the new cool things he and everyone else would be able to build. If you want to get things done, then having your skills obsoleted is good.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- slowmovintarget 4y ago
  If you want to get paid to get things done, having your skills obsoleted is concerning.
- jcutrell 4y ago
  This is true, but it also ignores the economic reality: your employer wants to get things done, but money is their constraint more than time. If they can replace you, they are obligated to do so. This is a nice idea, but in economic reality, you won’t be getting anything done if your boss lets you go.
  - meghan_rain 4y ago
    "Boss" always means "somebody like me from the same industry that is just more entrepreneurial and risk-accepting than me, who prefers a safe job". Become a boss, literally. Yes, I know, some industries are entrenched with old interests and gatekeeping. Then don't become a boss at building gas stations or housing or whatever. There are new, far more lucrative opportunities coming up.
zamnos 4y ago
> I think one of the things that really separates us from the high primates is that we’re tool builders. I read a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet. The condor used the least energy to move a kilometer. And, humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing, about a third of the way down the list. It was not too proud a showing for the crown of creation. So, that didn’t look so good. But, then somebody at Scientific American had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle. And, a man on a bicycle, a human on a bicycle, blew the condor away, completely off the top of the charts. > And that’s what a computer is to me. What a computer is to me is it’s the most remarkable tool that we’ve ever come up with, and it’s the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds.” ~ Steve Jobs ChatGPT is motorcycles for our minds.
- it_citizen 4y ago
  Fast and fun but dangerous and unforgiving if we don't anticipate potential dangers? :)
- good_boy 4y ago
  More like moped, powered, with small wheels, definitely not off-road. Still good if you don't mind going the same way again and again. Or going "in the wild" only to find out someone is already there. BTW, animals do make tool. Even some insects (ChatGPT told me last night :)).
- AlbertoGP 4y ago
  > TempleOS is a motorcycle. > You know what’s pretty crazy? If you lean over on a motorcycle, it crashes. Don’t do that. ‐ Terry A. Davis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwgj9UtuDFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwgj9UtuDFY
- atchoo 4y ago
  I fear it's more like "a butler for our minds". The more it serves us, the more indulgent, flaccid and incapable we will become. When our butler invitably degrades, we will have forgotten how to serve ourselves. At least with bicycles we were still pedalling.
chrisco255 4y ago
Can any ChatGPT fans point to some actual case studies where the time to market for producing a non-trivial piece of software was dramatically reduced?
- Wowfunhappy 4y ago
  ChatGPT was released four months ago. You need time to both (1) produce a non-trivial piece of software and (2) write a case study about it. Give it a year.
- yosito 4y ago
  I mean, I built this app demo with no iOS development experience in a few hours, rather than the week it would have taken me otherwise. https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp
  - smt88 4y ago
    This is not a good proof of concept. It appears[1] to be a single file (~200 lines of code) in an otherwise boilerplate React project. I know JS/TS very well, also have no iOS development experience, and could code this in a few hours easily. I don't even know React particularly well. On top of that, you don't know how much plagiarism went into this. It could be line-for-line an exact copy of someone else's code. A human can copy and paste code, too. An interesting proof of concept would be a larger application with a multi-component UI, some business logic, and a database access layer. Almost everything that you could sell would have those qualities. 1. https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp/blob/main/components/CalendarMap.tsx https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp/blob/main/componen...
    - yosito 4y ago
      Then go build it and stop wasting your time posting rude comments on HN.
      - smt88 4y ago
reset2023 4y ago
I see a crack, in the economic pyramid that has sustained socio-economic inequality for so many centuries.
- kickette 4y ago
  What you see is the pyramid becoming even more obtuse.
imchillyb 4y ago
I can't wait for the LLMs to 'invent' their own more efficient programming language, and a dumbed down IDE for us meatbags. Maybe they can even figure out a better way to silicon then we do now. I'm hopeful.
bitwize 4y ago
So, here's my big problem with AI: To quote Strong Bad, "I don't trust any device I can't mash Ctrl-Alt-Del on."[0] And the good bits of AI, as it exists currently, are inscrutable NN statistical models living in the cloud (i.e., someone else's computer). You pay for access, drink a verification can, submit your query, and then a miracle occurs[1], and you get your result. Today, if I want to be a programmer, I can procure all the equipment I need to do some serious programming -- for cheap! I have control over every step of the process. If creating software becomes something that you use AI to do rather than do yourself, it will require surrendering much of the process to mysterious cloud entities, like William Gibson's electronic voodoo gods floating out on the edges of cyberspace. Unless we have open-source-equivalent AI models that we can download, play with, run on our own hardware that actually give good results. I think I will wait for those to become available on hardware I actually have before faffing about with AI. [0] https://twitter.com/StrongBadActual https://twitter.com/StrongBadActual [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Then-a-Miracle-Occurs-Copyrighted-artwork-by-Sydney-Harris-Inc-All-materials-used-with_fig2_302632920 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Then-a-Miracle-Occurs-Co...
- Havoc 4y ago
  To be fair verification cans are pretty universal these days - not really an AI issue
ab-dm 4y ago
I've finally gotten around to reading Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari. It's been very interesting reading this alongside everything that's happening with AI at the moment. Would be curious to hear from others that have read it, but I find it difficult to fault his core arguments (or at least what I interpret them to be). The problem white collar humans have right now is that they're highly specialized. They're incredibly good at being very effective cogs. This is exactly what AI is getting so good at doing (in certain verticals). Traditional capitalism effectively demands that if a company can pay the owner of an algorithm 10% of what it would pay for a human to do the same thing (for even 80% of the quality), then that's what will eventually happen. Can government regulate it? They can sure try, but then either the companies or AI hosting providers will move to a country that doesn't have the same restrictions and it will happen anyway. Then people will say "it will just open up other industries". I'm not sure it will. What other industries will the swaths of copywriters, lawyers, accountants retrain for? I just don't understand everyone saying "It's going to make everyone's lives easier". In the short term sure, but if AI gets to where it's owners want it to get to, then a lot of people are going to find themselves professionally worthless. It's entirely possible that this is just not something we're prepared for, and it's almost guaranteed at this point that there's no stopping it. What's really interesting is this book was released in 2016... and Yuval was using Microsoft's Cortana as the example of this upcoming AI... Interesting times either way.
Pxtl 4y ago
While I appreciate that smart people will use this as simply the next phase in bicycles for the mind, I can't help but see the current AI revolution as the first tremors of the singularity. At the rate this is developing, I can't help but think AIs will be designing smarter AIs within a decade or two. People reassure themselves that these AIs are just synthesizing the internet datasets -- that they don't have "souls". I would say that doesn't matter -- whether or not a submarine can swim, a race of advanced submarines could dominate the ocean. I'm not fully convinced that the singularity requires intentionally designing a general AI, or that a glorified chatbot with some Darwinian forces applied to its existence couldn't get there. People keep thinking The Matrix or I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream, but I just keep thinking Her -- that even a benevolent AI revolution means humans are pointless. Or worse, Bladerunner, since I'm quite sure that if we do create a general AI we'll still murder it after it answers 15 questions or steps out of line. That anxiety is much harder to shake than the one about my job - I thought we had more time.
jschveibinz 4y ago
At one point around the turn of the 20th century, two guys riding on horses side by side came upon an automobile going about the same speed. The one guy said to the other, “I don’t get what people see in these automobiles. We are going just as fast on our horses. These autos aren’t going to last very long.” And they were on a relatively flat part of the tech curve…
inparen 4y ago
This. > Then at some point he describes his first time writing a game in software. He goes on about how running all the variations he tried in software would take a skilled engineer months of work, and he had done it in a couple hours - and was ecstatic. I am sure everyone felt ecstatic at some point, regardless of their trade or field, when they worked on something all day or longer and got it done. The sheer joy it brings afterward makes your mind completely calm; past and future cease to exist for that moment. There are always going to be people like that. AI or no AI, 20 years from now, people will still be writing software because it just makes them happy. Sure, the nature of problems will change, but these are the people who will keep pushing the field forward. “I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.” - Grandpa Einstein.
deafpolygon 4y ago
Guys, AI is not doomsday. If anything, it will be a boon to society when it reaches mass adoption. I'm thinking of how much faster we can develop new technologies, how much quicker we can research things. MEDICAL research that can be progressed that much quicker, lives that can be saved, animals rescued from extinction, etc. Hell, even the Computer from Star Trek. All of those things have potential applications with AI. It's just a new tool. Just like when computers arrived, mathematicians were not replaced just because computers could do the calculations faster. When autotune arrived, artists were not replaced - they just added that to their repertoire. Yes, some jobs will be lost. Yes, there will be a changing of the guards. That's just the nature of things - it's just how it's always been.
emrah 4y ago
Honestly threat from AI is not novel in the sense that anyone is under threat from being replaced by cheaper labor or eliminated altogether. AI is simply the newest one. Before this, it was jobs moving to India, RAD tools for non-devs etc. At the end of the day, whoever is unable to stay relevant is going to get steamrolled by the machine (no pun intended) of progress

100 points by vslira 4y ago

This is great. The world will change dramatically, and it is OK to be afraid of that and the unknowns, but the best approach is to take advantage of all the good things that are coming and do not spend too much time being sad about the things that are going away.

jacquesm 4y ago
That depends on what the good things are that are coming and what the things are that are going away. And it also depends on the bad things that are coming, and what new things are going to come. You are making an ethical argument based on utility, those two are not the best in combinations like that, the ethical argument should be made on an ethical foundation, not on the temporary outcome. It's interesting how one of the most obvious problem spaces, the one of ethical reasoning is one that is least amendable to pure logic without adding a very large dose of humanity. Example: killing is bad. But killing to save someone from endless misery (called Euthanasia) can be a good thing. But it still requires - where I live - two doctors to come to the conclusion that someone is beyond medical help and suffering needlessly. And then there needs to be a clear declaration on the capability of the person making the request that they are able to make such a request in the first place. Ethics isn't simple, even in 'simple' cases.
- gitfan86 4y ago
  It isn't a matter of Ethics. Ethics implies that I have control of the situation (Do I kill the person who wants to die or not) or (Do I stop AI or not) I am not in a position to decide to stop technological progress. So I am choosing control what I can, which is my attitude.
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Those that are in control of that progress and whether or not they release certain capabilities to the general public are the ones that will have to deal with the ethical bits, and society as a whole can do so as well. Politicians can make laws based on ethics.
    - gitfan86 4y ago
      Do you cure cancer if it means that 100 million people will lose their jobs?
      - newshorts 4y ago
        Yes. It will be painful for some folks to transition to doing something else for sure. I know you are just using random numbers but 10 million people die per year. The benefit would outweigh the cost.
      - jacquesm 4y ago
        Good question. So what's your answer and why?
      - xarope 4y ago
        Broken windows fallacy. If 100m highly competent people were involved in managing cancer, and we cured cancer, these 100m highly competent people could then turn their attention and skills to something else important. There are plenty of health care crises in the world

yedava 4y ago

I really doubt if AI will have any impact on developer jobs. If I want to build an alternative to TurboTax, how much can AI help? I like to think of software as automating a large number of bizarre corner cases which are a result of us being human. And corner cases are what AI usually fails at.

it_citizen 4y ago
> How much can AI help? In 2019, this is sci-fi In 2023, it can help engineers understand the complexity of taxes, translate some tax rules into code, help refine edge cases and fix mistakes. In 2030, ??? Things move insanely fast lately. I would not bet on anything.
- xwdv 4y ago
  People seem to assume tech progress is always some linear or exponential thing where things just keep getting better. They can’t imagine we could also just hit a plateau and have no progress for a decade until some other major breakthrough happens. AI art is hitting a plateau or has hit a plateau. Progress came quickly for months but nowadays each update is just a bit better details with more resolution and better hands. That’s it. If you have AI anxiety, just read my comment history.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    Is there a name for this fallacy? Because I see it a lot.
    - xwdv 4y ago
      Maybe whatever you call “past performance doesn’t imply future results” or something.
    - antondd 4y ago
      (Roughly) Amara's Law: “We tend to overestimate the effect of a technology in the short run and underestimate the effect in the long run.”

dimal 4y ago

This is roughly how I’m starting to think about it. This may be doomsday or it may be an amazing opportunity. I don’t know. If it’s doomsday, it doesn’t matter whether I act as if it’s doomsday or if I look for opportunities. Either way I’m fucked. But if I act as if it’s doomsday, but it’s actually an opportunity, I’ll miss all the possible opportunities that come up. So I don’t see any downside in looking at this as an opportunity. I may as well. And once I started to look at it that way, I started seeing all these potential ways to use AI to do what I do now, only better and more easily. So I’m going to keep looking for opportunities and going after them. If I’m going down, I’m going down swinging.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
jmann99999 4y ago
Pascal's wager for a different time and place. I have never thought about it that way. That's interesting.
- meghan_rain 4y ago
  I keep seeing lots of parallels between believing in God and blackbox AI systems. Especially in forums like lesswrong. Ironic, because most people there would be offended if you told them they are religious.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I’m the same, I really think “AI” worship is a new type of religion. People quite honestly believe we’re about to meet God like intelligence and inherit eternal life from such a meeting. I guess anything is possible but have I heard this before ?
- latexr 4y ago
  Pascal’s wager is full of holes[1]. I agree with you that these ideas are similar, and it’s because of that that your parent comment deserves scrutiny rather than blind acceptance. For example: > If it’s doomsday, it doesn’t matter whether I act as if it’s doomsday or if I look for opportunities. Either way I’m fucked. There are different degrees of “being fucked”. Not everyone is disadvantaged the same in a doomsday scenario: it does not literally happen in a day and it does not necessarily spell doom for those who caused it or are outside their sphere of influence. It follows that someone who looked for alternatives rather than fully embracing the system might stand a better chance. Furthermore, a scenario which is not yet inevitable may become so because people think it is inevitable and give up or act in a way that reinforces it. That’s the definition of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Note I’m not advocating a specific approach to this case. My aim is to highlight that while the initial argument seems logically airtight, it is deeply flawed and you shouldn’t take it as the true solution. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager

crop_rotation 4y ago

I think the article ends up makes the point in favour of AI anxiety: > In particular, I started to realize that every little thing that we decide not to do as a company could have been done, If every single company has more development bandwidth available, then at some multiple it would start driving demand and then wages down quickly. The multiple doesn't have to come just by AI improvements, as a lot of non developers can start using the AI to implement things. It is very good if you intend to found a company, you have multiplied the things your company can do by leaps and bounds. Not so good for salaries developers.

yosito 4y ago
In other words, it's a good time to found a company. It always was a good time, but this is a prime opportunity.

jacquesm 4y ago

How I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb.

jossclimb 4y ago

Something else that frames this conversation well is to consider the experience for a non programmer, inspecting the AI results to some query. We view this all through very adept and skilled eyes that know how to code an how to read code. Imagine you don't know anything about programming... * You don't know what a function is (or a method / class) * You don't even understand variables, static types, bools/ints/strings * You have no idea about an entry point such as main, how returns work * You have no idea about OOO, organising code over multiple files * You don't know what a socket is, you don't understand I/O, file handling To top it all, code looks alien to you, you have no idea how to read it. The only individuals who would be able to bridge the knowledge above, would likely become programmers anyhow.

it_citizen 4y ago
The biggest effort when I write code is to make it readable for other developers. The day where non tech people start using AI to produce non critical software and start interacting with code as a black box, simply telling the AI what they want and pointing the edge cases to correct, how much simpler development will become for AIs?
czx4f4bd 4y ago
Adding to your list: * You don't have experience with basic technical decision making -- e.g. why would you pick Java vs. C vs. Python vs. Go vs. any other language, and how would that decision change if you were building a web app vs. mobile app vs. embedded software? * You don't have a familiar set of tools and established preferences for the aforementioned decisions -- i.e. if an experienced programmer is building a web app, there are probably specific languages and tools they're inclined to reach for. * You don't know about application deployment and productionization. How do you get your project somewhere people can use it? You don't know about deploying code to servers or running it in Docker or K8s or PaaS. * You don't have the practiced logical thought process for things like algorithm design, debugging, figuring out user bug reports, identifying edge cases, predicting user behavior, etc. * You don't have the experience with things that experienced programmers find "obvious" -- e.g. if you're building a web app, you need an authentication system, registration flow, password reset, etc. I think the main effort to address this will be LLM-driven low-code solutions. Imagine something like Airtable, but with an integrated LLM assistant that can make changes to your app and write code to implement business rules and automation. This gets rid of problems like choosing your tech stack, deployment, etc. and it minimizes the amount of code the LLM has to create. I imagine this will have effects comparable to those of spreadsheet software: non-programmers will be able to build custom tools with a newfound ease and some will end up learning a lot of programming skills in the process. And, much like with spreadsheets, these tools will end up becoming business critical in unexpected ways and will turn out to be a huge pain in the ass to maintain. They'll find that parts of their business logic don't work as expected and that they can't figure out how to prompt the LLM to get it to implement the rules the right way. The users of these tools will basically have to learn some programming anyway or they'll have to hire experienced programmers to figure the problems out for them.

blueblimp 4y ago

The key quote: > [Wozniak] was overjoyed when he learned that the skill that put so much effort into suddenly became massively easier. He wasn't worried about not being able to earn an above-average salary from this anymore, he was happy about all the new cool things he and everyone else would be able to build. If you want to get things done, then having your skills obsoleted is good.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
slowmovintarget 4y ago
If you want to get paid to get things done, having your skills obsoleted is concerning.
jcutrell 4y ago
This is true, but it also ignores the economic reality: your employer wants to get things done, but money is their constraint more than time. If they can replace you, they are obligated to do so. This is a nice idea, but in economic reality, you won’t be getting anything done if your boss lets you go.
- meghan_rain 4y ago
  "Boss" always means "somebody like me from the same industry that is just more entrepreneurial and risk-accepting than me, who prefers a safe job". Become a boss, literally. Yes, I know, some industries are entrenched with old interests and gatekeeping. Then don't become a boss at building gas stations or housing or whatever. There are new, far more lucrative opportunities coming up.

zamnos 4y ago

> I think one of the things that really separates us from the high primates is that we’re tool builders. I read a study that measured the efficiency of locomotion for various species on the planet. The condor used the least energy to move a kilometer. And, humans came in with a rather unimpressive showing, about a third of the way down the list. It was not too proud a showing for the crown of creation. So, that didn’t look so good. But, then somebody at Scientific American had the insight to test the efficiency of locomotion for a man on a bicycle. And, a man on a bicycle, a human on a bicycle, blew the condor away, completely off the top of the charts. > And that’s what a computer is to me. What a computer is to me is it’s the most remarkable tool that we’ve ever come up with, and it’s the equivalent of a bicycle for our minds.” ~ Steve Jobs ChatGPT is motorcycles for our minds.

it_citizen 4y ago
Fast and fun but dangerous and unforgiving if we don't anticipate potential dangers? :)
good_boy 4y ago
More like moped, powered, with small wheels, definitely not off-road. Still good if you don't mind going the same way again and again. Or going "in the wild" only to find out someone is already there. BTW, animals do make tool. Even some insects (ChatGPT told me last night :)).
AlbertoGP 4y ago
> TempleOS is a motorcycle. > You know what’s pretty crazy? If you lean over on a motorcycle, it crashes. Don’t do that. ‐ Terry A. Davis, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwgj9UtuDFY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dwgj9UtuDFY
atchoo 4y ago
I fear it's more like "a butler for our minds". The more it serves us, the more indulgent, flaccid and incapable we will become. When our butler invitably degrades, we will have forgotten how to serve ourselves. At least with bicycles we were still pedalling.

chrisco255 4y ago

Can any ChatGPT fans point to some actual case studies where the time to market for producing a non-trivial piece of software was dramatically reduced?

Wowfunhappy 4y ago
ChatGPT was released four months ago. You need time to both (1) produce a non-trivial piece of software and (2) write a case study about it. Give it a year.
yosito 4y ago
I mean, I built this app demo with no iOS development experience in a few hours, rather than the week it would have taken me otherwise. https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp
- smt88 4y ago
  This is not a good proof of concept. It appears[1] to be a single file (~200 lines of code) in an otherwise boilerplate React project. I know JS/TS very well, also have no iOS development experience, and could code this in a few hours easily. I don't even know React particularly well. On top of that, you don't know how much plagiarism went into this. It could be line-for-line an exact copy of someone else's code. A human can copy and paste code, too. An interesting proof of concept would be a larger application with a multi-component UI, some business logic, and a database access layer. Almost everything that you could sell would have those qualities. 1. https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp/blob/main/components/CalendarMap.tsx https://github.com/localjo/CalendarMapApp/blob/main/componen...
  - yosito 4y ago
    Then go build it and stop wasting your time posting rude comments on HN.
    - smt88 4y ago

reset2023 4y ago

I see a crack, in the economic pyramid that has sustained socio-economic inequality for so many centuries.

kickette 4y ago
What you see is the pyramid becoming even more obtuse.

imchillyb 4y ago

I can't wait for the LLMs to 'invent' their own more efficient programming language, and a dumbed down IDE for us meatbags. Maybe they can even figure out a better way to silicon then we do now. I'm hopeful.

bitwize 4y ago

So, here's my big problem with AI: To quote Strong Bad, "I don't trust any device I can't mash Ctrl-Alt-Del on."[0] And the good bits of AI, as it exists currently, are inscrutable NN statistical models living in the cloud (i.e., someone else's computer). You pay for access, drink a verification can, submit your query, and then a miracle occurs[1], and you get your result. Today, if I want to be a programmer, I can procure all the equipment I need to do some serious programming -- for cheap! I have control over every step of the process. If creating software becomes something that you use AI to do rather than do yourself, it will require surrendering much of the process to mysterious cloud entities, like William Gibson's electronic voodoo gods floating out on the edges of cyberspace. Unless we have open-source-equivalent AI models that we can download, play with, run on our own hardware that actually give good results. I think I will wait for those to become available on hardware I actually have before faffing about with AI. [0] https://twitter.com/StrongBadActual https://twitter.com/StrongBadActual [1] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Then-a-Miracle-Occurs-Copyrighted-artwork-by-Sydney-Harris-Inc-All-materials-used-with_fig2_302632920 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Then-a-Miracle-Occurs-Co...

Havoc 4y ago
To be fair verification cans are pretty universal these days - not really an AI issue

ab-dm 4y ago

I've finally gotten around to reading Homo Deus by Yuval Noah Harari. It's been very interesting reading this alongside everything that's happening with AI at the moment. Would be curious to hear from others that have read it, but I find it difficult to fault his core arguments (or at least what I interpret them to be). The problem white collar humans have right now is that they're highly specialized. They're incredibly good at being very effective cogs. This is exactly what AI is getting so good at doing (in certain verticals). Traditional capitalism effectively demands that if a company can pay the owner of an algorithm 10% of what it would pay for a human to do the same thing (for even 80% of the quality), then that's what will eventually happen. Can government regulate it? They can sure try, but then either the companies or AI hosting providers will move to a country that doesn't have the same restrictions and it will happen anyway. Then people will say "it will just open up other industries". I'm not sure it will. What other industries will the swaths of copywriters, lawyers, accountants retrain for? I just don't understand everyone saying "It's going to make everyone's lives easier". In the short term sure, but if AI gets to where it's owners want it to get to, then a lot of people are going to find themselves professionally worthless. It's entirely possible that this is just not something we're prepared for, and it's almost guaranteed at this point that there's no stopping it. What's really interesting is this book was released in 2016... and Yuval was using Microsoft's Cortana as the example of this upcoming AI... Interesting times either way.

Pxtl 4y ago

While I appreciate that smart people will use this as simply the next phase in bicycles for the mind, I can't help but see the current AI revolution as the first tremors of the singularity. At the rate this is developing, I can't help but think AIs will be designing smarter AIs within a decade or two. People reassure themselves that these AIs are just synthesizing the internet datasets -- that they don't have "souls". I would say that doesn't matter -- whether or not a submarine can swim, a race of advanced submarines could dominate the ocean. I'm not fully convinced that the singularity requires intentionally designing a general AI, or that a glorified chatbot with some Darwinian forces applied to its existence couldn't get there. People keep thinking The Matrix or I Have No Mouth But I Must Scream, but I just keep thinking Her -- that even a benevolent AI revolution means humans are pointless. Or worse, Bladerunner, since I'm quite sure that if we do create a general AI we'll still murder it after it answers 15 questions or steps out of line. That anxiety is much harder to shake than the one about my job - I thought we had more time.

jschveibinz 4y ago

At one point around the turn of the 20th century, two guys riding on horses side by side came upon an automobile going about the same speed. The one guy said to the other, “I don’t get what people see in these automobiles. We are going just as fast on our horses. These autos aren’t going to last very long.” And they were on a relatively flat part of the tech curve…

inparen 4y ago

This. > Then at some point he describes his first time writing a game in software. He goes on about how running all the variations he tried in software would take a skilled engineer months of work, and he had done it in a couple hours - and was ecstatic. I am sure everyone felt ecstatic at some point, regardless of their trade or field, when they worked on something all day or longer and got it done. The sheer joy it brings afterward makes your mind completely calm; past and future cease to exist for that moment. There are always going to be people like that. AI or no AI, 20 years from now, people will still be writing software because it just makes them happy. Sure, the nature of problems will change, but these are the people who will keep pushing the field forward. “I never think of the future - it comes soon enough.” - Grandpa Einstein.

deafpolygon 4y ago

Guys, AI is not doomsday. If anything, it will be a boon to society when it reaches mass adoption. I'm thinking of how much faster we can develop new technologies, how much quicker we can research things. MEDICAL research that can be progressed that much quicker, lives that can be saved, animals rescued from extinction, etc. Hell, even the Computer from Star Trek. All of those things have potential applications with AI. It's just a new tool. Just like when computers arrived, mathematicians were not replaced just because computers could do the calculations faster. When autotune arrived, artists were not replaced - they just added that to their repertoire. Yes, some jobs will be lost. Yes, there will be a changing of the guards. That's just the nature of things - it's just how it's always been.

emrah 4y ago

Honestly threat from AI is not novel in the sense that anyone is under threat from being replaced by cheaper labor or eliminated altogether. AI is simply the newest one. Before this, it was jobs moving to India, RAD tools for non-devs etc. At the end of the day, whoever is unable to stay relevant is going to get steamrolled by the machine (no pun intended) of progress