4 ms·

To be really fair, there are levels of programming. The easiest level is traditionally vulnerable to automation. There's a lot of "accidental complexity" (https

To be really fair, there are levels of programming. The easiest level is traditionally vulnerable to automation. There's a lot of "accidental complexity" (https://wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet https://wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Silver_Bullet), e.g. ffmpeg, git; even in recalling syntax and idiom of an infrequently used tool, e.g. bash, jq. Once upon a time, developers had to pore over manpages, paper textbooks, or memorize it. Then came google. Next, stackexchange. And now GPT-4 - which is kind of a search engine plus rudimentary synthesis. But let's be clear. This is low-hanging fruit. It's a poor substitute for actual thought. And surely we are safe.

malux85 3y ago
I’ve been coding for 20 years commercially now, and I’ve come to define good coders - and indeed intelligence itself as … adaptability. Not fluid intelligence, not creative velocity, not creative originality, not oodles of domain knowledge … adaptability. A new tool comes along? Adapt. A new idea breaks a long established paradigm? Adapt. A new skill is required? Adapt. As I get older adapting gets easier, because I treat ideas like objects - useful until they are not. No part of me cannot change, and my certainty in myself comes not from a bank of sanctified ideals I worship but in the knowledge that whatever comes, I will adapt and thrive. Fat client, thin client, centralised, edge, micro services, monolithic, ideas, tech, frameworks, everything is fluid and that’s what keeps things fun. Same goes with the arrival of GPT, I embraced it, learnt it’s strengths and weaknesses and now I estimate I’m maybe 2x more productive because of it, that means more time of fun things that interest me. Adapt, adapt, adapt
julianeon 3y ago
I know that last line is wry but I feel like people need the reminder: The graveyards are filled to overflowing with companies that were challenged by low-end 'crappy' products and said 'they are going after the bottom of the market, we are safe'... a few years before they entered a terminal decline, and a decade before they went extinct.
- hyperthesis 3y ago
  I think thought is different; but I also see no barrier to strong AI. Jobs might be the least of our problems at that point.
- hyperthesis 3y ago
  The significant factor in "disruption" [Christensen] is not low-end products - incumbents typically crush them, and markets consolidate over time; many competitors become few. What's newsworthy and puzzling is when the low-end entrant does win. The key factor (IMHO from reading several of his books) is when incumbents cannot address low-end entrants, because their customers have captured them in some way (e.g. all aspects of the organization are optimized to their customers). Thought experiment: how could this apply to human thought? i.e. what is a low-end that we couldn't address? Disclaimer: I really like Christensen's reasoning, theories, and expression of them... but he did predict the iphone would not be disruptive. So, at best, difficult to apply!

malux85 3y ago

I’ve been coding for 20 years commercially now, and I’ve come to define good coders - and indeed intelligence itself as … adaptability. Not fluid intelligence, not creative velocity, not creative originality, not oodles of domain knowledge … adaptability. A new tool comes along? Adapt. A new idea breaks a long established paradigm? Adapt. A new skill is required? Adapt. As I get older adapting gets easier, because I treat ideas like objects - useful until they are not. No part of me cannot change, and my certainty in myself comes not from a bank of sanctified ideals I worship but in the knowledge that whatever comes, I will adapt and thrive. Fat client, thin client, centralised, edge, micro services, monolithic, ideas, tech, frameworks, everything is fluid and that’s what keeps things fun. Same goes with the arrival of GPT, I embraced it, learnt it’s strengths and weaknesses and now I estimate I’m maybe 2x more productive because of it, that means more time of fun things that interest me. Adapt, adapt, adapt

julianeon 3y ago

I know that last line is wry but I feel like people need the reminder: The graveyards are filled to overflowing with companies that were challenged by low-end 'crappy' products and said 'they are going after the bottom of the market, we are safe'... a few years before they entered a terminal decline, and a decade before they went extinct.

hyperthesis 3y ago
I think thought is different; but I also see no barrier to strong AI. Jobs might be the least of our problems at that point.
hyperthesis 3y ago
The significant factor in "disruption" [Christensen] is not low-end products - incumbents typically crush them, and markets consolidate over time; many competitors become few. What's newsworthy and puzzling is when the low-end entrant does win. The key factor (IMHO from reading several of his books) is when incumbents cannot address low-end entrants, because their customers have captured them in some way (e.g. all aspects of the organization are optimized to their customers). Thought experiment: how could this apply to human thought? i.e. what is a low-end that we couldn't address? Disclaimer: I really like Christensen's reasoning, theories, and expression of them... but he did predict the iphone would not be disruptive. So, at best, difficult to apply!