4 ms·

>My believe is that there are exactly zero such jobs. If your claim is that we're at least at 1%, then you're claiming that there are at least 269k fully automa

>My believe is that there are exactly zero such jobs. If your claim is that we're at least at 1%, then you're claiming that there are at least 269k fully automatable programmer jobs [1]. It shouldn't be hard for you to find at least one to start. If I built an entire car but I am missing the key. I cannot drive the car but the car is 99% complete. It's just missing the key. So what happens is, it can replace 0% of human locomotion but it's 99% complete? get it? Just because the tool can't be used doesn't mean it's zero percent of the way to being drive able. Same with your job. The LLM can't replace any job yet, but it doesn't mean it's 1% of the way there. But you see what I just explained to you is obvious. You already know this just like I and every one else on the face of the earth already knows this fact. You're taking the discussion into a play on words. What does 1% apply to? Rather then use common sense and derive what I mean you prefer to redirect the conversation into a very specific definition of 1% that serves your own purpose. We can play this game all day. We can discuss whether your application of 1% is more fitting than my application of 1%. What a waste of everyone's time. I think it's better if rather then playing these games to "win" discussions, use your common sense to move the discussion past these games. Otherwise we're going to be talking about obvious things all day and getting all worked up about personal definitions. Clearly the LLM is more than just 1%.

__loam 3y ago
[flagged]
- corethree 3y ago
  [flagged]
wpietri 3y ago
Your "1%" is a fantasy measure. It is purely subjective. It creates a false sense of linearity when the progress curve is not only not linear, it may not be possible to complete. You just handwave away any criticism with a "clearly" when it isn't clear at all. Mine is clearly measurable. You wanted to talk about job replacement; I'm measuring jobs replaced. You believe that we're at 48% complete (or 38% or whatever) but you can't point to even one programming job that ChatGPT can take over. If your fantasy 48% measure means 0% real-world success, I think the 0% is the more useful number to look at. Humans may not be smart enough to build human-grade minds, in the same way that cats will never learn to program no matter how much they paw keyboards. People mistaking ChatGPT for AGI strikes me as the same kind of error where they mistook Eliza for a person, or 1970s/1980s computers as the things that would develop consciousness and maybe take over. It doesn't tell us much about the power of computers, but rather the inability of some humans to understand how complex and powerful minds are.
- corethree 3y ago
  >Your "1%" is a fantasy measure. It is purely subjective unfortunately the hard topics and the topics that matter are the questions that matter most are often qualitative. Measurable answers are easy. Nobody cares about those things because it's obvious. Has ChatGPT replaced any jobs for programmers right at this moment? Overall no. But why argue a point everybody already knows? Will chatgpt replace you in the future as the technology develops? Is it a precursor to the machine that will replace you? Qualitative trend-lines point to an unknown artificial entity that does replace all of us. It is useful to speculate and extend the trendline in that direction. You may wish to shield yourself to reality and only look at things with quantitative numbers and lengths that are measurable by rulers but the shield is an illusion what you are doing is blindness. Natural selection and natural history is built from qualitative understanding. Without subjective analysis on qualitative data we would not be able to understand natural selection from the macro perspective. You would be ignorant of the concept of evolution and natural selection and not much different than a creationist. Obviously you aren't like that, you're just using a tactic to win a discussion. Always use hard data works when it works. But ultimately this strategy has failed.

__loam 3y ago

[flagged]

corethree 3y ago
[flagged]

wpietri 3y ago

Your "1%" is a fantasy measure. It is purely subjective. It creates a false sense of linearity when the progress curve is not only not linear, it may not be possible to complete. You just handwave away any criticism with a "clearly" when it isn't clear at all. Mine is clearly measurable. You wanted to talk about job replacement; I'm measuring jobs replaced. You believe that we're at 48% complete (or 38% or whatever) but you can't point to even one programming job that ChatGPT can take over. If your fantasy 48% measure means 0% real-world success, I think the 0% is the more useful number to look at. Humans may not be smart enough to build human-grade minds, in the same way that cats will never learn to program no matter how much they paw keyboards. People mistaking ChatGPT for AGI strikes me as the same kind of error where they mistook Eliza for a person, or 1970s/1980s computers as the things that would develop consciousness and maybe take over. It doesn't tell us much about the power of computers, but rather the inability of some humans to understand how complex and powerful minds are.

corethree 3y ago
>Your "1%" is a fantasy measure. It is purely subjective unfortunately the hard topics and the topics that matter are the questions that matter most are often qualitative. Measurable answers are easy. Nobody cares about those things because it's obvious. Has ChatGPT replaced any jobs for programmers right at this moment? Overall no. But why argue a point everybody already knows? Will chatgpt replace you in the future as the technology develops? Is it a precursor to the machine that will replace you? Qualitative trend-lines point to an unknown artificial entity that does replace all of us. It is useful to speculate and extend the trendline in that direction. You may wish to shield yourself to reality and only look at things with quantitative numbers and lengths that are measurable by rulers but the shield is an illusion what you are doing is blindness. Natural selection and natural history is built from qualitative understanding. Without subjective analysis on qualitative data we would not be able to understand natural selection from the macro perspective. You would be ignorant of the concept of evolution and natural selection and not much different than a creationist. Obviously you aren't like that, you're just using a tactic to win a discussion. Always use hard data works when it works. But ultimately this strategy has failed.