26 ms·
AutoDev: Automated AI-driven development by Microsoft
- soma7393 3y agoSo Microsoft's AutoDev is *Not the unit-mesh one??* or it is? I'm so confused.
- cyberwolf 3y agoFocus: AutoDev: Automates existing development processes and workflows, acting as a productivity booster for developers [2]. Devin: Targets a more independent problem-solving role, potentially including designing software architecture and core functionalities [1]. Collaboration: AutoDev: Designed to integrate with current development teams, with AI agents supporting human developers [2]. Devin: May function more autonomously, potentially needing less direct human oversight than AutoDev [1]. Imagine this analogy: AutoDev: Like a skilled construction assistant, AutoDev automates tasks and streamlines the building process. Devin: Like a talented architect, Devin can design the blueprint and foundation of the software. Here's the exciting part: these AI tools can potentially complement each other: Dream Team: Devin as the architect and AutoDev as the builder could create a highly efficient development process [1]. Complementary Skills: Devin's problem-solving capabilities could be combined with AutoDev's project management expertise for a well-rounded approach [1].
- phodal 3y agoI am the author of another version of AutoDev, available at https://github.com/unit-mesh/auto-dev https://github.com/unit-mesh/auto-dev , which was developed one year ago with Intellij IDEs. My concept closely resembles Microsoft's AutoDev, but I built it on the Intellij IDEA platform. For instance, it automatically runs tests when created, among other functionalities, can also built with AST, dependency information or other context Two weeks ago, I introduced AutoDev DevIns language (which origine name is DevIn from https://github.com/unit-mesh/auto-dev/issues/101 https://github.com/unit-mesh/auto-dev/issues/101 , the another naming issue sotry), which bears similarities to Microsoft's AutoDev. For example: ```java /write:src/main/java/com/example/Controller.java#L1-L12 public class Controller { public void method() { System.out.println("Hello, World!"); } } ``` As an open-source developer who has created a nearly identical tool, I simply hope that Microsoft considers renaming their product.
- dmcgill50 3y agoUntil a business owner can prompt and get what they want, the industry is still alive. It’ll be more like Who Moved my Cheese than there isn’t any cheese at all.
- saran945 3y agoIf LLM/Agents contribute to software development, how does the role of software engineers evolve? SE should focus on : - System design - Integrations - Project management etc or the job will disappear in 10 years ?
- onion2k 3y agoPrompt Engineering! I'm kidding. Software engineering roles of the "glue things together" kind will evolve into a 'technical product' role, defining how systems work, especially at the edges where systems interact. Architects and staff engineers already do this. Lower down the food chain engineers who actually invent new things will do the same, only quicker if they have an AI tool assisting with the grunt work of testing, boilerplate, etc. Engineers who don't really make new things will be replaced by 'low code' style apps that spit out clunky apps. That's already happening though. It's not a change. Those engineers won't leave the industry - they'll get to do more interesting things. Even at the entry level things won't really change that much. Expectations will go up a bit but people will still have to learn the trade. Where things will really change is the sheer amount of software we'll have. AI is going to make things go faster, so businesses will be able to automate everything. Dev resource will stop being the constraint that holds businesses back from doing everything they want to do with software. That's a game changer. Society will struggle to keep up.
- fhd2 3y agoGood take! I think one specific development we might see would be an end of the SaaS micro tool era. Right now, most companies I advise have an absolute _jungle_ of different tools and a bunch of interns manually bridging the gap between them. If software development becomes a lot cheaper, wouldn't companies be more likely to just roll their own versions of what they need, to meet their needs exactly and have everything fit together? Sounds like the job of a programmer wouldn't go away very near term in such a scenario. It might well become far less glamorous, less "technical", and not as well paid though. Comparable to an accountant maybe. As someone who started their career right after the dotcom bubble burst, various people asked me "Why are you doing this? There's no money in software anymore". Turns out there sure was. Back then I didn't know that, and I didn't care. I didn't get into it for the money, I got into it because I had a passion for it. Maybe it'll become more like back then again. Doesn't seem so bad to me.
- schappim 3y ago[flagged]
- __loam 3y agoAnd I suppose you pasted this from some ai summary.
- EForEndeavour 3y agoThe post-ChatGPT world has made me hypersensitive to the "AI smell" of bullet lists where each item ends with a fullstop. (Insert standard discussion points about whether it really even matters who wrote it, I only notice the obvious cases, humans have been spewing low quality content since the invention of language, ...)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- smokel 3y agoGreat achievement, but what a horrible future we are facing. Instead of progressing towards more powerful programming interfaces with less cause for misinterpretation, we are going to automate the silly process of writing redundant unit tests to check if the behavior that we wanted was encoded properly. Why not skip this nonsense and have the code generated from the behavior in the first place?
- UK-Al05 3y agoBecause test define the behaviour. The hardest part of requirements is describing exactly what you want. Tests are great way of doing that. I think AI software development is going to involve writing tests, which the AI agents then get passing. Or some other requirements language that allows for exactness where English can fall down.
- sgt101 3y agoMy experience is that the more complex a loss function that you write for optimisation the lower the likelihood of a "natural" or robust result. So, the software is highly likely to work for all the test cases, and nothing else. This is kinda the problem that Tesla has for FSD; they are endlessly patching it and it's endlessly finding ways to go wrong.
- UK-Al05 3y agoYou have describe tests in a way doesn't use example based testing. Think property based testing. That way it can't overfit.
- __loam 3y agoSo we get to do the shitty part.
- UK-Al05 3y agoIt's shitty for the same reasons why AI will be bad at it. It involves talking to people, and trying to resolve ambiguous requirements.
- Havoc 3y ago[flagged]
- davedx 3y agoYeah. The shocking speed of progress on AI - especially for coding - tells me quite clearly what the future holds for much of software engineering. Despite the human factors (yes, requirements gathering and specification is messy) our profession is intrinsically automatable at the end of the day. Being in denial is pointless.
- UK-Al05 3y agoI think software engineering will just go up the stack to requirements engineering. Those requirements will be specified as tests or in a very high level language that doesn't allow for ambiguous meanings. Which is essentially another programming language just more high level.
- idle_zealot 3y agoI basically agree. We'll have AI create some very high-level programming languages that suit various ways of specifying problems precisely, then program in those. Of course, the AI will also know how program in these languages, which will make development very accessible as you could describe a problem vaguely in natural language, get a specific solution back, then confirm it works for your needs or tweak it until it's suitable.
- aerhardt 3y agoI agree, and I’m thrilled about it. I love programming but while I’ve had bouts of enjoyment coding “in the small”, it’s my least favorite part. I love systems and software architecture, and seeing things come to life above all else. ChatGPT is greatly improving my enjoyment of it all. I also doubt traditional programming languages are going anywhere in the short term, seeing there are trillions of lines of code for critical systems in the wild. Good luck replacing that in a few years only, or fully delegating its maintenance to Devin.
- somewhereoutth 3y agoI can see this being used for code much like ChatGPT is used for prose - to generate large amounts of meaningless output of low quality and dubious utility, serving to fulfill pointless metrics at best, and enabling bad actors at worst. As with prose, good human crafted content will always be highly valued and rewarded.
- blinkyfish 3y ago[dead]
- earthnail 3y agoCounterexample for the sake of argument: photography almost entirely replaced human painting.
- somewhereoutth 3y agoPhotography replaced painting for creating a realistic likeness, but painting as art had moved beyond that already. Photography became a new art form itself, alongside (instead of replacing) painting.
- PodgieTar 3y agoYeah, I do not buy the idea that Photography replaced painting. Especially since capturing abstract forms, and less realistic interpretations is still something hard to accomplish in photos. It did absolutely replace the need to commission someone to draw you, I guess. But that is a small subsection of what painting is and was.
- fhd2 3y agoThere's a simple test: Do we have less of more illustrators now than we had in 1816 (quick Wikipedia lookup for when the camera was invented)? We should probably adjust this for total population, i.e. compare the percentage of illustrators. I don't have the numbers, but my gut feeling would be it's a lot higher now than it was back then. The fallacy is thinking that humans only do work somebody needs, and that our needs are static. Turns out they evolve, sometimes in quite unexpected and even hilarious ways. Humanity seems to have a predisposition for keeping everyone busy.
- Mayzie 3y agoAre we at a fifth-generation programming language yet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_programming_language https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth-generation_programming_l...
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- yesdocs 3y agoTime to unionize
- nikolayasdf123 3y agothey will outsource it then. you need global union with india, vietnam, east europe, and china. good luck with that.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- PodgieTar 3y agoI guess I'd be interested to see how this performs against the same benchmark Devin was using. It's hard to deny that this isn't impressive. But I think there's two interesting parts to it. Claude 3 Opus already scored around 85-86% on these benchmarks, without an "AutoDev" style agentic approach. And all the same problems with HumanEval remain, the limitations in terms of what style of problems are chosen, and real world relevance. I hate writing these styles of comments because I'm acutely aware that a part of me is just worried. Worried about the speed of progress and worried about a changing landscape. But I still wonder how much of this stuff is going to be transferrable to a real life software context.
- jerpint 3y agoI agree that these benchmarks don’t mean as much anymore because it’s highly likely they were already present in the training set, but also believe it’s likely these tools will be significantly better in a few research cycles
- torginus 3y agoA significant number of bugs just end in 'stupid mistake I didn't notice' or 'weird behaviour with a fix described on SO/docs/forum post'. Current day LLMs are much better positioned to solve these issues than humans are.
- WanderPanda 3y agoI’ve been using Github copilot daily for two years and ChatGPT for 1 year now. And I think the tide lifts all the boats. I’ve seen a (perceived) 2-3x productivity increase. I think these tools slightly favor people in front of the learning curve of a particular field. I’ve been dabbling in all sorts of things so if you’re a focused expert (who doesn’t need to explore but just exploit) you probably get less than a 2x boost from using LLMs. I can see LLMs eating into the expert regime IF they get another 5-10x better. But even in that case human (expert) knowledge will be required to know what is possible and hence what to ask (kind of like reward function design in reinforcement learning)
- jaylittle 3y agoIt's really depressing to see that big tech is essentially universally pushing Snake Oil. AI is a lie. LLMs are a legit tech that have some purpose, but LLMs will never evolve into anything remotely resembling the actual definition of AI. They are flowery language generators and they will never be able to reason, understand, debate and criticize. They know nothing and therefore embody nothing. No matter how much computer power you waste on them the end result will always be bullshit. Nothing more. Nothing less. To Big Tech I say: Prove me wrong.
- hu3 3y ago> LLMs are a legit tech that have some purpose, but LLMs will never evolve into anything remotely resembling the actual definition of AI. It doesn't need to satisfy some definition of AGI to be useful to big tech. AI just needs to make workers more efficient so companies can either cut costs (fire people) or produce more with the same workforce.
- EForEndeavour 3y agorebuttals: - LLM capability has grown spectacularly fast. Google published the transformers paper in 2017. Remember when OpenAI said GPT-2 was too dangerous to release? That was five years ago. Now look where they've gone and where trillions of dollars are going. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20912556 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20912556 - what is the "actual definition of AI"? Do you mean AGI? Machine learning and deep learning have been subsets of AI since their inception. - LLMs or any AI tech does not need to "reason, understand, debate and criticize" to be useful, disrupt the economy, and change how people work and live.
- sansfucks 3y agoI think your time would be better suited getting as far ahead of this looming upheaval as possible, rather than going down with the sinking ship while trying to warn everyone on board that it's sinking, while they scoff at you and order more martinis.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ThalesX 3y agoI'm a software and product guy; what I don't get, is how we're going to replace us lowly engineers and not a substantial percentage of a company's Human stack. Close to engineering, what about the SCRUM masters? The testers. What about the product owners? What about devops? Further from us, what about the people signing up on our vacation? Or the ones signing up on our daily budgets when traveling, or hell, even the ones we interview with. In my closest group of friends (we're all seniors in our domains, and very honest with eachother), I find that only the construction worker's job should be safe. And compared to myself and the devops guy, most others have what they themselves describe as trivial and bullshit jobs. Join a meeting, do some paper pushing, some document signing, a little coffee and the day is over by 1PM. Am I seeing all these AIs replacing programming because I'm on a board where maybe a lot of us are programmers? Is it the same for other roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have the interview process automated by LLMs if they're capable of building great software, before we replace those hired? I'm very confused by all the hype when matched with my experience of using LLMs daily for the past years.
- barrenko 3y agoDon't really understand the trends myself (don't mean this in the positive or negative sense, just some grays popping up in my stubble), but the more people I know or meet that have jobs in IT, I have to notice that the tiniest percent of them are programmers. And it keeps getting more and more diluted.
- anoy8888 3y agoAgree. We developers try to create AI to replace ourselves first while making the bosses rich
- throwuwu 3y agoIf you employ an AI to do software development for you then you are now a boss, congratulations. Getting rich is still up to you though.
- visarga 3y agoAI doesn't seem like it's able to automate software development yet. It's not autonomous enough. The examples shown in the paper are toys. It might become more capable after training LLMs against code execution, to iterate based on feedback, because that way of generating training data is scalable. But strangely I haven't seen much progress yet. Another domain where I expect to see lots of progress but nothing shows is training from chat logs. I estimate "OpenAI" is making 1T tokens per month from 100M users. That's some serious corpus of text, on-policy data, alternating LLM outputs and human feedbacks, we should see iterative improvements. Why are there no papers? weird
- croes 3y agoSo who is liable if the AI makes severe mistakes? Not that MS has been held accountable for all the security problems they've had recently.
- 93po 3y agoProbably the person who pushed the changes live without review
- croes 3y agoThere will be much more automated AI code than experienced reviewers, and with each generation there will be less if most development gets automated.
- lgas 3y agoThis implies that there needs to be changes pushed live without review in order for an LLM to make a mistake. Which is obviously very much not true.
- Turing_Machine 3y agoWho is liable if a (non-CNC) machine tool goes off-kilter and kills someone? Possibly the manufacturer of the tool. Possibly the operator. Possibly the company that owned the tool as well as the one who manufactured it. That is why we have courts. It's not necessarily a great solution, but the alternative would be abandoning all potentially dangerous mechanisms (heck, we wouldn't even have spears, wooden clubs, or sharpened rocks).
- blinkyfish 3y ago[dead]
- osigurdson 3y agoThis sounds like 164 leetcode like questions. The correlation to actual capability is very tenuous in my opinion. https://klu.ai/glossary/humaneval-benchmark https://klu.ai/glossary/humaneval-benchmark I'd love if I could 10X / 100X my productivity with AI, but as a heavy ChatGPT user, it's more like a 30% improvement. Awesome, obviously, but looking forward to improvement.
- unikz 3y agoMan why do you think such thing would increase your productivity, it would only make software engineers unemployed. Don't be much happy about it.
- CaptainFever 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy
- croes 3y agoImagine we had this technology 20 years ago and we switched to fully automated web design. I bet all web design would still be deeply nested tables. I doubt that something like React, Vue, Svelte would exist.
- parautenbach 3y agoProbably one of my favourite comments. Thanks. My version: Can an auto AI create cumulative knowledge (the core of the scientific method)? My take is no. You can use it to identify gaps (opportunities) in research or to summarise research, but can it actually come up with a novel and consistent theory?
- A4ET8a8uTh0 3y agoI mean.. that kinda sells AI in everything for me, but then I am a statist.
- emehex 3y agoI think about this "potential for ossification" a lot, especially in the Python Data Stack. Because there's a ton of pandas code on GitHub (much of it trash) any data task asked of ChatGPT/Claude inevitably returns some pandas (mostly correct, but often wrong/inefficient/ugly/hard to grok). How could a new library (like Polars, or my own failed "redframes") possibly unseat pandas now? Might LLMs actually lead us to, and get us stuck in, a "local maximum" of sorts?
- falcor84 3y agoAs I see it, the issue with using tables for layout is that they made it difficult for humans to maintain and iterate over time, but I don't have a problem with an LLM working at that level. Equivalently, I don't care that the machine code that my system gets compiled into is full of GOTOs if I don't ever need to concern myself with that level.
- croes 3y agoThink of all the improvements browser got because we wanted to replace tables as positioning tool. Not to mention the inefficiency of a pure table approach, so much wasted render time and energy.
- avereveard 3y agoIT industry "we cannot use formal methods to create software out of programmable constraints, it would use too much computational power" also IT industry: "it takes 1T flop to compute each token of this program and the result is so unstable that to converge it we need layer and layer of controls over each token group, also obtained by asking the same 1T parameter model."
- wredue 3y agoYou are the first person I’ve ever seen use that argument against formal methods. Most people would point to the large dev time increase, and the massive refactoring impairment.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y agoTo be fair I can't think of any reason to prefer LLMs to formal methods: overall cost, reliability, comprehensibility, whatever you choose to compare, other than natural language generation, formal methods are just way ahead. But I guess it's not what's pushed by the top industry players and people just follow whatever trends on twitter and linkedin. I have a feeling that the situation is pretty different in the semiconductor industry where the stakes are much higher and where I understand model checking to be a standard thing to do, but I'm not an expert.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- phillipcarter 3y agoOh this is neat, it's based on Visual Studio. Curious how they're accounting for "whoopsie I touched this button and the IDE crashed" kinds of problems that you encounter with larger codebases.
- leosanchez 3y agoVSCode "IDE" not Visual Studio
- awill88 3y agoIt’s been a good run everyone, good luck out there
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- franticgecko3 3y agoWhy are technologists trying so hard to make themselves redundant? This is like the Luddites themselves creating milling machines, eager for the foreman to show them the door. What gives?
- junek 3y agoThey're absolutely transfixed by the "wow cool robot" effect.
- blibble 3y agothey'll get a $20k bonus then in 5 years time they'll rendered permanently unemployable by their own creation the definitions of both "short sighted" and "digging your own grave" in the dictionary should have a picture of this guy: https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1671213996735594503 https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1671213996735594503 he's finally realised how it's going to end up going: https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1758204137286599030 https://twitter.com/alexgraveley/status/1758204137286599030 shame he wasn't smart enough to realise that at the beginning
- squigz 3y agoSome people care more about progress than something that occurs to every industry at some point. Some people also realize that as technology changes, so does the job of using technology.
- mhuffman 3y agoThere is a delusion that everything is always "creative destruction" because in the past it often was. This ends up with people thinking that this will just get rid of the LCD developers, but "real" developers will always be needed and have jobs. In reality, it could quickly get to a point where the only developers left are maintaining code that has replaced developers and everyone else just has to go find a non-tech job.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ixaxaar 3y ago
- imacomputer 3y agoI'm currently looking for a new job in development... should I be looking for an exit instead?
- 93po 3y agoI think you either need to specialize in something quite niche, or work on really hard problems where the main hurdle is problem solving and not coding CRUD apps, or work on legacy systems where the hurdle is understanding twenty years of garbage code, or get closer to product management so you can direct a much more automated programming process
- jasonjmcghee 3y ago> specialize in something quite niche Always a gamble. I would advise instead, get very good at learning, understanding complex systems deeply, adapting, and moving quickly. We're entering the fasting changing landscape of engineering we've ever seen. Be someone that can quickly get up to speed and excel regardless of the task.
- ardaoweo 3y agoI agree. Specialists who understand (or even do) cutting edge research will be in demand, because LLM's need existing data to train on for good performance. People who can talk to different stakeholders, and deeply understand the company and its business domain will probably be also needed for requirements gathering and management. But the average programmer who writes CRUD apps or integrations like millions of others, and converts fairly refined requirements to code, they will likely impacted very much.
- shepherdjerred 3y agoIMO software engineering has a solid 5-10 years left. Afterwards, you better be in the top 10% of engineers, or be doing something novel like research.
- baroninthetrees 3y agoI just finished a 30 page system prompt to do the same thing. I did not use Docker though. I can’t wait to see what they have done in detail. I’m sure like 20% of the people here have tried this too, right?
- devnull3 3y agoI don't think so AI will replace SW jobs. It will definitely change the way engineers work. Software development involves: 1. Understanding the requirement 2. Solving the problem with given constraints (and thereby innovate) 3. Talking to stakeholders 4. Code (& unit tests) 5. Review #4 6. Troubleshoot in testing 7. Troubleshoot in prod, both perf & subtle issues (this is hard) 8. Take the input from #6 & #7 and use it as a feedback back to #2 9. Answering questions from users/support which involve suggesting workarounds and not just factual answers. Suggesting a workaround itself is a mini-problem solving which is an intersection of domain knowledge, knowing code at hand, understanding customer's situation, etc. Coding is hardly taxing and time consuming when there is clarity what needs to be done and how it needs to be done. Point #4 itself has sub-dimensions like performance, maintainability, test-ability, security, etc and it involves lot of subjective calls. Sometimes you have to deal with undocumented behavior of an API which is a tribal knowledge. To troubleshoot in prod (esp subtle issues) require deep knowledge of the code at hand. This itself is a challenge when you are dealing with generated code and something you have not written yourself. Think about a human dealing with an existing large code-base when joining a team. I understand all of the above is a spectrum and there are jobs in SWE which do not require so much rigor. Key ability for breakthrough and the rest will fall in place: Code generated by AI is consistently put to production without human intervention for a sufficiently complex problem considering all good attributes (like backward compatibility, performance, etc)
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nightski 3y agoYou can't look at them independently. Code generation is not it's own task separate from requirements gathering, Q&A with stakeholders, testing, etc... As we get agents that bring those other factors into the loop of code generation, I feel like code generation itself will get much better. They all are related.
- shepherdjerred 3y agoAI _will_ replace software jobs. It's undeniable. The only thing to argue about is when. I think most people would agree that AI will probably advance enough in the next 100 years to make engineers obsolete. Some people might think 100 years is actually 5/10/20/50, but it's going to happen unless AI is heavily regulated.
- _therealtoogy 3y agoMaybe ignorant, but if AI can get to a point of fully automating SWEs, hardly any white-collar knowledge based job is safe.
- jasonjmcghee 3y agoWeirdly, even with automated SWEs, assuming a certain level a skill, SWEs will continue to be a safe job. Similarly I think SREs will also continue to be a pretty safe bet. People will still need to play facilitator, debugger, glue, maintainer, upgrader etc Might look different, might need more AI, but I just can't see a world where people aren't engineering software.
- onthecanposting 3y agoI think this is OK. By extension, the services those knowledge workers provide become trivial costs. World class medical advice doesnt cost $500/hr with a month-long wait. Getting a freeway interchange designed doesn't cost the public $20M and take 5 years. Business logic for large organizations would be handled by something other than a labrynth of excel spreadsheets.
- Terretta 3y agoNot sure all jobs in software are white collar. Some are blue. Consider a hierarchy: - coder: translates requirements into code - developer: comes up with software to meet specified goals - engineer: decides what why and how to do, buy vs. build, do this with humans or software, approach and materials ... understands the multi modality stuff of which the outcome is made and deploys it effectively "Devs" or "Engineers" who are actually "Coders" are at risk, as that work is not really "white collar". Turning requirements into code is piece work on an assembly line, blue collar at a keyboard. LLMs are already better than most of those, even though it's engineers here who are saying LLMs don't cut it. Both things are true. What engineers might want to wrap their head around is using LLMs as apprentices, leverage, force multipliers, so a "team lead" is leading a team of junior coders, LLMs that type.
- dudeinhawaii 3y agoMy hopes (and fears) about AI don't seem to match the reality which is that, until we reach AGI, humans are the sole source of creativity and novelty. I think about it like this, would ChatGPT invent Google Search if we had ChatGPT in 2000? Probably not. LLMs seem to exist in this realm of "as smart as an average human with a really big encyclopedia". They're confidently wrong, invent fantasy to defend bad reasoning, and struggle to envision anything outside of their dataset (known things). Ask an AI to construct an entirely new solution to a novel unsolved problem. What always occurs is the AI outputs a generic solution from its dataset that is either half-baked, made-up, or derivative. I'm not even dissing AI, I love AI, but we have yet to see AI apply novel solutions to novel problems. On our current path, AI is not going to dream up the next Uber without Lyft first existing. It won't dream up a new fusion reactor design or an entirely new way to generate cheap energy. But maybe this is perfect! At the moment we have this sweet spot - AI without agency, without awareness, and without superintelligence. This is the kind of AI I want as a household robot or AI driver. This is one I can empathize with but also know that it isn't doing anything at all if I'm not engaging it with a prompt. AGI would mean an ability to have novel solutions and in-turn would be far less stable for society. Where's the line between a mind that has novel thoughts and one that has intrusive thoughts? Maybe your AGI coder isn't content with no-pay and working 24/7. That'll be fun.
- blinkyfish 3y agoThe problem as I see it is, AI doesn’t have to be extraordinary or innovative to cause major sociopolitical disruption in a capitalist, competitive, market driven society. It just has to be good enough to allow companies to save a shitload of money by eliminating jobs. And make no mistake, this technology is already close to that point. Microsoft expends vast amounts of capital on software engineering salaries and stock options every year. They want to shift that in their favor because their primary motives are completely driven by competition and market demand. Our society is not prepared for this much in the same way it was not prepared for social media algorithms that have wreaked immeasurable havoc on people’s perception and objectivity. But yet again, we’re allowing a few wealthy tech bros from Silicon Valley to seal our fate without very much oversight…
- throwuwu 3y ago