4 ms·

You've got a good point here. I've wondered about this at times. Like, what if we can't find a way to advance these agents much beyond where Devin is now? What

You've got a good point here. I've wondered about this at times. Like, what if we can't find a way to advance these agents much beyond where Devin is now? What if they can't consume a code base and make meaningfully high quality additions to them reliably, so they're essentially stuck as novice/intermediate developers? This seems nice(ish) for someone like me with a senior title and experience (~15 years), but totally knocks the bottom out of the industry. How do new people enter the industry and become programmers like I did? What's the new entry point into software, and what does that role look like? I can't tell if it would actually be good to knock the bottom out. If seniors become sort of like engineers going into the machine to tune things and build the big new things, who replaces them eventually? Will software get worse because of this? One thing I wonder is if this will birth a new generation of software architecture which is essentially a complete mess which AIs can easily and efficiently manage due to being machines, which will require businesses to "take the leap". Basically you tell the system what you want and it'll generate it on a bespoke system using custom infrastructure which the AI is optimized to implement solutions on. The results might be amazing, but if something goes wrong, humans would have a hell of a time figuring it out. That wouldn't be a nice career for someone like me. It might still leave a category of old fashioned human-engineered software, though. One thing about agriculture worth noting is that we had a LOT of other things we could work on. Agriculture held us back, so to speak. What is software holding back right now? If I'm unemployed by this advance, what would I do instead? I'm not sure how transferable my skills are. It could actually make me quite a bit less productive, not more.

hellojesus 3y ago
While it certainly make you, the individual, less productive because you've been replaced by a machine, it still makes society more productive. If replaced, you essentially were the misallocated capital: capital paying your salary was inefficient compared to that same salary paying a more productive AI. This means you will either have to find a way to become more efficient to compete against AI for developer jobs, or you will have to reskill. This reskilling period is what you're referring to as being less productive, but in the long run you will find a job and therefore will become productive again. We can't guarantee that job will pay as much as your former, but costs in the former greatly fell anyway, so it doesn't much matter. In short: you will be reallocated and find your optimal productivity subject to your utility preferences through the reallocation.
- BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
  This is objectively accurate, and I think you mean to be nothing but. However, the mechanistic focus on efficiency and profit at the direct expense of human quality of life is downright goulish. We need political changes that ensure people who are “outmoded” by this tech can still have good lives.
  - hellojesus 3y ago
    The mechanism for this is charity. I understand people like to see social welfare programs, but I believe they are inferior to private sector charity because they ignore moral hazard, tend to produce worse outcomes, and are less economically efficient. At the core, welfare steals from all to provide provide for some. This introduces deadweight loss. I see a future where those displaced by automation are able to retrain with minimal cost or by charitable means. But this also means that current workers should be saving hard for a rainy day, as nobody knows when one may come.
    - Pugpugpugs 3y ago
      "At the core, welfare steals from all to provide for some." Yep, I want a system of progressive taxation that provides negative pressure on wealth inequality while uplifting the poorest. I like this idea because I like liberty, and a rich person loses almost no agency by having some portion of their income or wealth taxed while a small stipend can make a huge difference in the choices available to a poor person. There's also the utilitarian argument that disproportionately burdening a small-ish number of rich people for the benefit of the majority is a net good. If private sector charity could achieve either of these goals (alleviation of wealth inequality or uplifting of the poor) as well as social welfare can, I'd argue for it instead, since at the end of the day I prefer it be voluntary, but I don't think that it's up to the task, which we can observe in today's charities. Do you have any evidentiary basis for the counter? Why would the system of voluntary charity suddenly improve its outcomes or have more money to spend? "they ignore moral hazard" Sometimes economic risks are negative, like spending your paycheck on lottery tickets, but other times they're positive, like starting a risky but ambitious startup or getting an education. If social welfare causes a significant change in the average person's risk tolerance, a claim that definitely requires substantiation, then I still might argue this isn't a net negative for the economy or society at large. Even if the claim is true, is using homelessness and privation as a threat (a threat often realized upon the unfortunate) a worthwhile ethical sacrifice? How much does it cost us not to do this, because I think it's worth some money. "tend to produce worse outcomes" If this is true, which I also wouldn't take for granted, then you'd still need to factor in the asymmetry in access that private charities have vs a social welfare system. Perhaps a person who gets the aid of charity benefits more than one who gets welfare, but does the average person? "are less economically efficient" This is likely to be true simply because government tends to be inefficient, but can be worth it for the above reasons and can be assessed objectively. I'd be fine with spending some margin more than should be spent, say 50%, if it means that 95% rather than 10% of people have access to food or housing or whatever else. Overall, I don't see how charity can even serve as a mechanism for what we're talking about. If we see unprecedented unemployment due to AI, how exactly do we expect voluntary charity to expand to meet demand? What can we do other than some form of wealth redistribution if we don't want lots of people to starve? Furthermore, why can't we do both? If charity will expand to meet demand, then let's use social welfare to fill in the gaps and prevent destitution.

hellojesus 3y ago

While it certainly make you, the individual, less productive because you've been replaced by a machine, it still makes society more productive. If replaced, you essentially were the misallocated capital: capital paying your salary was inefficient compared to that same salary paying a more productive AI. This means you will either have to find a way to become more efficient to compete against AI for developer jobs, or you will have to reskill. This reskilling period is what you're referring to as being less productive, but in the long run you will find a job and therefore will become productive again. We can't guarantee that job will pay as much as your former, but costs in the former greatly fell anyway, so it doesn't much matter. In short: you will be reallocated and find your optimal productivity subject to your utility preferences through the reallocation.

BriggyDwiggs42 3y ago
This is objectively accurate, and I think you mean to be nothing but. However, the mechanistic focus on efficiency and profit at the direct expense of human quality of life is downright goulish. We need political changes that ensure people who are “outmoded” by this tech can still have good lives.
- hellojesus 3y ago
  The mechanism for this is charity. I understand people like to see social welfare programs, but I believe they are inferior to private sector charity because they ignore moral hazard, tend to produce worse outcomes, and are less economically efficient. At the core, welfare steals from all to provide provide for some. This introduces deadweight loss. I see a future where those displaced by automation are able to retrain with minimal cost or by charitable means. But this also means that current workers should be saving hard for a rainy day, as nobody knows when one may come.
  - Pugpugpugs 3y ago
    "At the core, welfare steals from all to provide for some." Yep, I want a system of progressive taxation that provides negative pressure on wealth inequality while uplifting the poorest. I like this idea because I like liberty, and a rich person loses almost no agency by having some portion of their income or wealth taxed while a small stipend can make a huge difference in the choices available to a poor person. There's also the utilitarian argument that disproportionately burdening a small-ish number of rich people for the benefit of the majority is a net good. If private sector charity could achieve either of these goals (alleviation of wealth inequality or uplifting of the poor) as well as social welfare can, I'd argue for it instead, since at the end of the day I prefer it be voluntary, but I don't think that it's up to the task, which we can observe in today's charities. Do you have any evidentiary basis for the counter? Why would the system of voluntary charity suddenly improve its outcomes or have more money to spend? "they ignore moral hazard" Sometimes economic risks are negative, like spending your paycheck on lottery tickets, but other times they're positive, like starting a risky but ambitious startup or getting an education. If social welfare causes a significant change in the average person's risk tolerance, a claim that definitely requires substantiation, then I still might argue this isn't a net negative for the economy or society at large. Even if the claim is true, is using homelessness and privation as a threat (a threat often realized upon the unfortunate) a worthwhile ethical sacrifice? How much does it cost us not to do this, because I think it's worth some money. "tend to produce worse outcomes" If this is true, which I also wouldn't take for granted, then you'd still need to factor in the asymmetry in access that private charities have vs a social welfare system. Perhaps a person who gets the aid of charity benefits more than one who gets welfare, but does the average person? "are less economically efficient" This is likely to be true simply because government tends to be inefficient, but can be worth it for the above reasons and can be assessed objectively. I'd be fine with spending some margin more than should be spent, say 50%, if it means that 95% rather than 10% of people have access to food or housing or whatever else. Overall, I don't see how charity can even serve as a mechanism for what we're talking about. If we see unprecedented unemployment due to AI, how exactly do we expect voluntary charity to expand to meet demand? What can we do other than some form of wealth redistribution if we don't want lots of people to starve? Furthermore, why can't we do both? If charity will expand to meet demand, then let's use social welfare to fill in the gaps and prevent destitution.