17 ms·

Folks see it wrong. Is not about human vs machine software development. Is about allocating the brightest humans to the most productive activities.

• paulryanrogers 3y ago
  Keep in mind there are many more humans that aren't as bright. If there are fewer and fewer ways for them to contribute then they'll find other ways to get what they need.
  • kovezd 3y ago
    And as long as robots are where they are. There a lot of jobs in hospitality, and healthcare available. In average, life quality will improve.
  • samatman 3y ago
    A reasonable, albeit lossy, gloss on "bright" is "someone who earns their living through intellectual labor". Clearly there are mathematicians who become potato farmers, but what we don't see is movement in the other direction: call it sufficient but not necessary. The corollary being that those people are already earning their bread doing things which an artificial intelligence can't replicate. I've seen many vast overestimates of how many of these jobs could even be replaced with a Jetsons robot, and we're nowhere close to deploying anything vaguely resembling one of those.
• smallmancontrov 3y ago
  Making sure those productive minds sell ads rather than do science. Value creation!
  • kovezd 3y ago
    Yes. The distribution of information is indeed a complex problem, as graph theory shows us. Regarding science is about one standard deviation further than software development in complexity. It's not necessarily a trade off. On the contrary, software applies scientific breakthroughs.
    • smallmancontrov 3y ago
      My problem isn't the graph or even its particular failings (vanishing gradients in science being one of many), it's the ideological opposition to regularization.