4 ms·

I don't think you have to go too far down these lines and you get to not just the "End of Programming" but also the "End of Intellectual Work". It's quite gloom

I don't think you have to go too far down these lines and you get to not just the "End of Programming" but also the "End of Intellectual Work". It's quite gloomy if you think too much about it.

BasilPH 3y ago
I've been contemplating the impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) on our work and if their influence is ultimately gloomy. For me it seems to hinge on whether one is goal-oriented or process-oriented. For those who are goal-oriented, the focus is on the outcome: discovering new things, earning money, or making an impact. LLMs can achieve many of these objectives, potentially overshadowing the achievements of goal-driven individuals. This could be particularly disheartening when the goals are as fundamental as earning a living. On the other hand, those who are process-oriented value the journey itself - the state of flow, the challenge of problem-solving. For them, the advent of LLMs is less troubling. It's not the first time a process has been automated away from humans: Knitting remains a beloved activity despite the existence of industrial looms. Enjoying programming for its own sake is unaffected by the efficiency or capabilities of LLMs. I think it's valid to be upset about LLMs taking jobs. But under the assumption that one's basic needs are met, I think it's a good reminder that focusing on process over goals can make you both happier and more resilient to outside change.
- LastTrain 3y ago
  > For me it seems to hinge on whether one is goal-oriented or process-oriented. That is a luxury of hobbies. Most people are income-driven.
- mrnotcrazy 3y ago
  I think it might be the reverse? I think if your goal oriented your not programing for the sake of programing, your programing to solve problems. LLMs are exciting if you like solving problems because you can now tackle things you would otherwise never be able to alone. If programming didn't help me automate my sys admin work, help me make games, websites and other creations I wouldn't bother with it.
lapphi 3y ago
69 years ago this would have sparked hope in the people. But now we know better than to assume technological progress equals societal progress. To me, that’s the sad part.
- bugglebeetle 3y ago
  Well, about ~150 years ago, someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress. Unfortunately, the only people who really seemed to understand this were people who were in underdeveloped countries, and thus at risk of being exploited by others, and elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting. Predictably, because they were more wealthy and technologically advanced, the latter defeated the former and halted all progress toward the general goal of wedding technological and societal progress, leaving us where we are today.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Not necessary: Every tech innovation developed in a capitalist society that has ultimately improved that society. Not sufficient: USSR. >elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting Reminder: Stalin was an elite in the same country he was exploiting. If you think the societal progress of Soviet citizens was hampered more by elites from some other country than by Stalin's own policies, I'd be interested to know who you have in mind.
    - bugglebeetle 3y ago
      >Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Historically, the only times in which workers in developed countries saw gains relative to Capital owners is when they organized into large unionized formations during the Industrial Revolution and when the West was under threat from Soviet Union, both materially and ideologically. Since the collapse of the USSR, inequality has spiked massively and technological progress has become even more decoupled from societal progress. And you’re correct about Stalin because the country was underdeveloped in its political economy and quickly devolved into totalitarianism under pressure from external threats. This eventually culminated in them attempting to speed-run a form of state-directed Capitalism, with its corresponding class formations (see Bettleheim’s book Class Struggle in the USSR). The same thing also happened in China, although more durably and shifted by about 20-30 years, relative to their revolution. Soviet and early CCP leaders were mistaken in thinking that you could leapfrog Capitalist development and thus both succumbed to its forces, the former externally and the latter internally.

I don't think you have to go too far down these lines and you get to not just the "End of Programming" but also the "End of Intellectual Work". It's quite gloomy if you think too much about it.

BasilPH 3y ago

I've been contemplating the impact of Large Language Models (LLMs) on our work and if their influence is ultimately gloomy. For me it seems to hinge on whether one is goal-oriented or process-oriented. For those who are goal-oriented, the focus is on the outcome: discovering new things, earning money, or making an impact. LLMs can achieve many of these objectives, potentially overshadowing the achievements of goal-driven individuals. This could be particularly disheartening when the goals are as fundamental as earning a living. On the other hand, those who are process-oriented value the journey itself - the state of flow, the challenge of problem-solving. For them, the advent of LLMs is less troubling. It's not the first time a process has been automated away from humans: Knitting remains a beloved activity despite the existence of industrial looms. Enjoying programming for its own sake is unaffected by the efficiency or capabilities of LLMs. I think it's valid to be upset about LLMs taking jobs. But under the assumption that one's basic needs are met, I think it's a good reminder that focusing on process over goals can make you both happier and more resilient to outside change.

LastTrain 3y ago
> For me it seems to hinge on whether one is goal-oriented or process-oriented. That is a luxury of hobbies. Most people are income-driven.
mrnotcrazy 3y ago
I think it might be the reverse? I think if your goal oriented your not programing for the sake of programing, your programing to solve problems. LLMs are exciting if you like solving problems because you can now tackle things you would otherwise never be able to alone. If programming didn't help me automate my sys admin work, help me make games, websites and other creations I wouldn't bother with it.

lapphi 3y ago

69 years ago this would have sparked hope in the people. But now we know better than to assume technological progress equals societal progress. To me, that’s the sad part.

bugglebeetle 3y ago
Well, about ~150 years ago, someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress. Unfortunately, the only people who really seemed to understand this were people who were in underdeveloped countries, and thus at risk of being exploited by others, and elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting. Predictably, because they were more wealthy and technologically advanced, the latter defeated the former and halted all progress toward the general goal of wedding technological and societal progress, leaving us where we are today.
- akoboldfrying 3y ago
  >someone explained that workers owning the means of production was necessary for technological progress to equate to societal progress Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Not necessary: Every tech innovation developed in a capitalist society that has ultimately improved that society. Not sufficient: USSR. >elites in the countries looking to do the exploiting Reminder: Stalin was an elite in the same country he was exploiting. If you think the societal progress of Soviet citizens was hampered more by elites from some other country than by Stalin's own policies, I'd be interested to know who you have in mind.
  - bugglebeetle 3y ago
    >Except it's plainly neither necessary nor sufficient. Historically, the only times in which workers in developed countries saw gains relative to Capital owners is when they organized into large unionized formations during the Industrial Revolution and when the West was under threat from Soviet Union, both materially and ideologically. Since the collapse of the USSR, inequality has spiked massively and technological progress has become even more decoupled from societal progress. And you’re correct about Stalin because the country was underdeveloped in its political economy and quickly devolved into totalitarianism under pressure from external threats. This eventually culminated in them attempting to speed-run a form of state-directed Capitalism, with its corresponding class formations (see Bettleheim’s book Class Struggle in the USSR). The same thing also happened in China, although more durably and shifted by about 20-30 years, relative to their revolution. Soviet and early CCP leaders were mistaken in thinking that you could leapfrog Capitalist development and thus both succumbed to its forces, the former externally and the latter internally.