5 ms·

Perusing the comments here, it's interesting how short-sighted HN can be when it comes to LLMs. Generative "AI" is only going to get better, and the question o

by nvy 3y ago

Perusing the comments here, it's interesting how short-sighted HN can be when it comes to LLMs. Generative "AI" is only going to get better, and the question of whether or not ChatGPT can write FizzBuzz, or avionics firmware, or a CRUD app, seems to be missing the forest for the trees. Even if LLMs or some successor technology never ends up supplanting programmers entirely, it is guaranteed we will see a mixture of deskilling (certain skills no longer being required, like spelling in the age of autocorrect) and massive productivity gains (meaning n-m workers can now do the job of n). These tools aren't going away, and they're only going to improve. Thus the market for programmers will shrink henceforth. There are no doubts about it. Maybe slowly, maybe quickly, but shrink it will, for the same reason that the market for radiologists is shrinking, or the reason that engineering firms no longer employ whole floors of draftsmen.

ethanwillis 3y ago
duck I guess I really should be worried.
simion314 3y ago
Assuming LLM improve productivity why do you think the market will shrink instead of getting even more stuff done? Say if some actually smart LLM could improve my team productivity with 25% then 1 we could fire a person 2 we could handle 25% more tasks, features and bugs So I think 2 will happen. My latest example of LLM issues,| I asked ChatGPT and competition to convert a line of jQuery into native JS, they all got it wrong because jQuery has some selectors like ":header" that is native to JS but the LLM used it anyway though somewhere in it's big memory it has the information that his is not native and if you prompt it right it will fix the issue. So seems to me the LLM are focusing too much on the prompt and failing to use it's full memory on the problem, so it can fix small individual micro tasks but is a complete waste of time for something a bit more advanced , my conclusion you can't have a manager or an artist armed with ChatGPT and create a full project without actually learning to code, at best they will learn to code from the LLM but the hard way and probably using outdated code and inefficient ways.
- nvy 3y ago
  >Assuming LLM improve productivity why do you think the market will shrink instead of getting even more stuff done? Because this is what always happens when tools cause productivity gains. Budgets aren't infinite. - Computerized avionics dramatically cut demand for flight crews. It used to require a dedicated "flight engineer" to literally run the engines (like a train engineer) in a WWII-era bomber, and a dedicated navigator. Now airliners barely need a co-pilot. - As I mentioned previously, computerized medical imaging has caused demand for radiologists to go down, because one radiologist today can do the work of multiple radiologists of yesteryear. - In software in particular, if engineering and development is more productive, companies can cut costs and still get the same amount of work done, or possibly more. It's not about firing people immediately, it's about the next company hiring fewer. And the one after that hiring even fewer. Generative coding is going to make software development labs leaner. >my conclusion you can't have a manager or an artist armed with ChatGPT and create a full project without actually learning to code, at best they will learn to code from the LLM but the hard way and probably using outdated code and inefficient ways. That's the current state of affairs. Why do you think the technology will not improve beyond where it is now?
  - omnicognate 3y ago
    > As I mentioned previously, computerized medical imaging has caused demand for radiologists to go down And as I said in my reply, this isn't true.
    - nvy 3y ago
      Maybe I was wrong on that point, and maybe I wasn't. Are you suggesting it invalidates the entire premise? Or is this just classic HN pedantry? Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
      - omnicognate 3y ago
        I don't care about the rest of the post, or about arguing with you. I'm publicly correcting a specific, widely repeated, false claim. One which, if you take the time to read the links I posted, you will see is having a concrete negative effect on an industry responsible for real people's wellbeing. In particular (see the third link), ~50% of students considering radiology as a specialisation express concerns because of false claims its future as a job is under threat. These concerns contribute to hiring problems in that profession, which exacerbate a global staff shortage (first link) which results in worsened healthcare outcomes. There's a non-zero chance that correcting your statement will influence somebody considering whether to specialise in this field, and replying to your repeating of the claim as well as to the original instance increases that chance. I don't consider it pedantry.
omnicognate 3y ago
> the market for radiologists is shrinking On the contrary, it's expanding and there's a global shortage of them [1]. AI has been changing the role of radiologists but not replacing it [2] and radiologists are needed more than ever, but the industry has been struggling to communicate this to students worried by ill-informed claims the profession is under threat from AI [3]. [1] https://www.rsna.org/news/2022/may/global-radiologist-shortage https://www.rsna.org/news/2022/may/global-radiologist-shorta... [2] https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/imaging/radiology/article/53028785/a-european-radiology-leader-looks-at-ais-longterm-impact-on-radiology https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/imaging/radiology/article/... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131993/
- nvy 3y ago
  I think it's two sides of the same coin. Demand for medical imaging is not necessarily the same as demand for human radiologists. One radiologist can service 2 or 3 hospitals thanks to the internet, and "AI" is getting better at radiology too. Human-AI Augmentation is happening right now. When steam drills were becoming the norm I'm sure some mining firms were struggling to hire human diggers too.
  - yoden 3y ago
    The demand for human radiologists never actually went down, though[1]. There is improved efficiency due to technology, but it hasn't kept up with increased demand for scanning and increased patient volumes. There's also induced demand caused by efficiency increasing. Diagnostic AI tends to make different kinds of errors than a human, so even if it were better, both together is even stronger. The "Radiologists are being replaced by technology" story has been repeated so many times by uninformed software developers that it has become popular wisdom, but the reality so far is that we need more radiologists than ever. Ironically, radiology might be a decent proxy for what could happen with software engineering, but in the opposite way you intend. [1] https://marvel-b1-cdn.bc0a.com/f00000000046012/info.vrad.com/hubfs/Supply%20Demand%20Graph.png https://marvel-b1-cdn.bc0a.com/f00000000046012/info.vrad.com...
Al0neStar 3y ago
Assuming that HumanEval is a good benchmark (it's not) and assuming you can naively scale under fat-tails (you can't) then according to OpenAI's own gpt4 report (someone did the math on hn/reddit where they reproduced the curve but i can't find the link) at 100x the training cost of gpt4 you will still have a 15% error rate on medium difficulty tasks.
namaria 3y ago
"Programmers" is ill defined. Once it meant translating maths and engineering specs for assemblers. Now it can mean anything from someone writing verified and audited device drivers for robotics to designers a/b testing retail workflows. In the last century, 'programming' became a major economic and technological field of activity. To think some new 'programming' tool will make it shrink is not at all warranted. Tools that make computer programming more accessible, more flexible and more powerful will increase demand for people who can reason about it, work on it, teach it, evaluate it etc etc.
Taurenking 3y ago
[dead]
sfn42 3y ago
It may get better but I'm not convinced it will get good. Currently I am not impressed. By which I mean I'm really impressed, it's pretty cool stuff but also hugely overrated. I'm not even slightly worried about my job security. I tried Copilot and it sucked. At the end of the day, LLMs are fakers. They do not possess real intelligence, they merely fake intelligence using statistics and training data. There comes a point where you can't fake it any more.
air7 3y ago
> meaning n-m workers can now do the job of n... Thus the market for programmers will shrink henceforth. Maybe in the far future when we have programmed nearly everything there is to program... Until then companies will just produce n*(n/(n-m)) more output. Actually, the reduction of the cost of programming output will logically lead to more demand as solutions that were previously deemed too expensive to produce will become viable.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
__loam 3y ago
The assumption that these models can only improve is a pretty big one.

by nvy 3y ago

ethanwillis 3y ago

duck I guess I really should be worried.

simion314 3y ago

Assuming LLM improve productivity why do you think the market will shrink instead of getting even more stuff done? Say if some actually smart LLM could improve my team productivity with 25% then 1 we could fire a person 2 we could handle 25% more tasks, features and bugs So I think 2 will happen. My latest example of LLM issues,| I asked ChatGPT and competition to convert a line of jQuery into native JS, they all got it wrong because jQuery has some selectors like ":header" that is native to JS but the LLM used it anyway though somewhere in it's big memory it has the information that his is not native and if you prompt it right it will fix the issue. So seems to me the LLM are focusing too much on the prompt and failing to use it's full memory on the problem, so it can fix small individual micro tasks but is a complete waste of time for something a bit more advanced , my conclusion you can't have a manager or an artist armed with ChatGPT and create a full project without actually learning to code, at best they will learn to code from the LLM but the hard way and probably using outdated code and inefficient ways.

nvy 3y ago
>Assuming LLM improve productivity why do you think the market will shrink instead of getting even more stuff done? Because this is what always happens when tools cause productivity gains. Budgets aren't infinite. - Computerized avionics dramatically cut demand for flight crews. It used to require a dedicated "flight engineer" to literally run the engines (like a train engineer) in a WWII-era bomber, and a dedicated navigator. Now airliners barely need a co-pilot. - As I mentioned previously, computerized medical imaging has caused demand for radiologists to go down, because one radiologist today can do the work of multiple radiologists of yesteryear. - In software in particular, if engineering and development is more productive, companies can cut costs and still get the same amount of work done, or possibly more. It's not about firing people immediately, it's about the next company hiring fewer. And the one after that hiring even fewer. Generative coding is going to make software development labs leaner. >my conclusion you can't have a manager or an artist armed with ChatGPT and create a full project without actually learning to code, at best they will learn to code from the LLM but the hard way and probably using outdated code and inefficient ways. That's the current state of affairs. Why do you think the technology will not improve beyond where it is now?
- omnicognate 3y ago
  > As I mentioned previously, computerized medical imaging has caused demand for radiologists to go down And as I said in my reply, this isn't true.
  - nvy 3y ago
    Maybe I was wrong on that point, and maybe I wasn't. Are you suggesting it invalidates the entire premise? Or is this just classic HN pedantry? Do you have anything useful to add to the discussion?
    - omnicognate 3y ago
      I don't care about the rest of the post, or about arguing with you. I'm publicly correcting a specific, widely repeated, false claim. One which, if you take the time to read the links I posted, you will see is having a concrete negative effect on an industry responsible for real people's wellbeing. In particular (see the third link), ~50% of students considering radiology as a specialisation express concerns because of false claims its future as a job is under threat. These concerns contribute to hiring problems in that profession, which exacerbate a global staff shortage (first link) which results in worsened healthcare outcomes. There's a non-zero chance that correcting your statement will influence somebody considering whether to specialise in this field, and replying to your repeating of the claim as well as to the original instance increases that chance. I don't consider it pedantry.

omnicognate 3y ago

> the market for radiologists is shrinking On the contrary, it's expanding and there's a global shortage of them [1]. AI has been changing the role of radiologists but not replacing it [2] and radiologists are needed more than ever, but the industry has been struggling to communicate this to students worried by ill-informed claims the profession is under threat from AI [3]. [1] https://www.rsna.org/news/2022/may/global-radiologist-shortage https://www.rsna.org/news/2022/may/global-radiologist-shorta... [2] https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/imaging/radiology/article/53028785/a-european-radiology-leader-looks-at-ais-longterm-impact-on-radiology https://www.hcinnovationgroup.com/imaging/radiology/article/... [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131993/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10131993/

nvy 3y ago
I think it's two sides of the same coin. Demand for medical imaging is not necessarily the same as demand for human radiologists. One radiologist can service 2 or 3 hospitals thanks to the internet, and "AI" is getting better at radiology too. Human-AI Augmentation is happening right now. When steam drills were becoming the norm I'm sure some mining firms were struggling to hire human diggers too.
- yoden 3y ago
  The demand for human radiologists never actually went down, though[1]. There is improved efficiency due to technology, but it hasn't kept up with increased demand for scanning and increased patient volumes. There's also induced demand caused by efficiency increasing. Diagnostic AI tends to make different kinds of errors than a human, so even if it were better, both together is even stronger. The "Radiologists are being replaced by technology" story has been repeated so many times by uninformed software developers that it has become popular wisdom, but the reality so far is that we need more radiologists than ever. Ironically, radiology might be a decent proxy for what could happen with software engineering, but in the opposite way you intend. [1] https://marvel-b1-cdn.bc0a.com/f00000000046012/info.vrad.com/hubfs/Supply%20Demand%20Graph.png https://marvel-b1-cdn.bc0a.com/f00000000046012/info.vrad.com...

Al0neStar 3y ago

Assuming that HumanEval is a good benchmark (it's not) and assuming you can naively scale under fat-tails (you can't) then according to OpenAI's own gpt4 report (someone did the math on hn/reddit where they reproduced the curve but i can't find the link) at 100x the training cost of gpt4 you will still have a 15% error rate on medium difficulty tasks.

namaria 3y ago

"Programmers" is ill defined. Once it meant translating maths and engineering specs for assemblers. Now it can mean anything from someone writing verified and audited device drivers for robotics to designers a/b testing retail workflows. In the last century, 'programming' became a major economic and technological field of activity. To think some new 'programming' tool will make it shrink is not at all warranted. Tools that make computer programming more accessible, more flexible and more powerful will increase demand for people who can reason about it, work on it, teach it, evaluate it etc etc.

Taurenking 3y ago

[dead]

sfn42 3y ago

It may get better but I'm not convinced it will get good. Currently I am not impressed. By which I mean I'm really impressed, it's pretty cool stuff but also hugely overrated. I'm not even slightly worried about my job security. I tried Copilot and it sucked. At the end of the day, LLMs are fakers. They do not possess real intelligence, they merely fake intelligence using statistics and training data. There comes a point where you can't fake it any more.

air7 3y ago

> meaning n-m workers can now do the job of n... Thus the market for programmers will shrink henceforth. Maybe in the far future when we have programmed nearly everything there is to program... Until then companies will just produce n*(n/(n-m)) more output. Actually, the reduction of the cost of programming output will logically lead to more demand as solutions that were previously deemed too expensive to produce will become viable.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

__loam 3y ago

The assumption that these models can only improve is a pretty big one.