3 ms·
You’re missing the reality of how automation “replaces” people. It doesn’t do one person’s job 100%, it does the easiest 90% of everyone’s job. You won’t be rep
by taneq 3y ago
You’re missing the reality of how automation “replaces” people. It doesn’t do one person’s job 100%, it does the easiest 90% of everyone’s job. You won’t be replaced by an AI, you and 8 other people will be replaced by an AI plus one guy who has good prompt-fu and editing/fact checking skills.
- veidr 3y agoYeah but not programmer jobs. If you could pay your engineers 2x to be 3x more productive, you would. But you can't. But if you could pay some automaton 0.1x to make them 2x more productive, you obviously would. 2x is a stretch today but the price of applied-statstics-model add-on is still way way less than 0.1x. So your surely would augment them that way as (I think?) most companies are now doing. So I think you're generally right but "AI" isn't remotely close to being able to do 90% of a fresh frontend bootcamp grad's job. It's literally more like 1%.
- visarga 3y ago> you and 8 other people will be replaced by an AI plus one guy who has good prompt-fu and editing/fact checking skills. So the maximum processing speed of the AI will be limited to the reading speed of the prompt guy, brilliant. If every AI task requires human in the loop, all you get is a small boost. Only when it can handle everything alone it can scale 100x or 1000x.
- taneq 3y ago> Only when it can handle everything alone it can scale 100x or 1000x. There'll always be a human somewhere at some level of the loop, at least until we make ourselves entirely obsolete. If AI can handle 99% of the workload, that's a 100x improvement. If it can handle 99.9% of the workload, that's a 1000x improvement.