4 ms·

My point was that your example was flawed, your translator friend can still have a a lot of work to do since the translators are average or garbage still. A tr

My point was that your example was flawed, your translator friend can still have a a lot of work to do since the translators are average or garbage still. A true intelligent AI sure could be a problem, but this stuff will just be an copilot, good enough to do basic stuff and maybe double check the programmer. When you predict it would be possible I give the AI a JIRA ticked and it could open the application, reproduce the issue, update the ticket with details about the bug , then find the issue in a giant code base, fix it correctly etc . Because today an AI can't do anything from the above. It can't replace a human.

rglullis 3y ago
My translator friend speaks no Japanese. She used to work with English, German and Portuguese. The fact that translators are still not Professional-level (yet?) is no consolation for the thousands of other professionals like her. She retired already. > It can't replace a human. If it provides enough leverage to today to make one person 20x more productive, then it is effectively replacing 19 humans. When it is effective to make one employee 200x more efficient, it will replace 199 humans. And if you have enough hubris to think you are always going to be the lucky one out of the chopping block, it's not for lack of warning.
- simion314 3y ago
  >If it provides enough leverage to today to make one person 20x more productive, But this is not reality. Is this happening for your work? Or you read this somewhere ?
  - rglullis 3y ago
    Sorry, my mistake. Replace "today" with "someday". For "today", I've seen good engineers solving specific tasks in a third of the time already, but I won't make specific claims about absolute productivity multipliers.
    - simion314 3y ago
      >For "today", I've seen good engineers solving specific tasks in a third of the time Specific is the important word here. Some boring tasks that can be automated in all jobs will be automated though you still need to check the AI. I assume no competent developer was fired because of that productivity boost in that specific task
      - rglullis 3y ago
        You don't need to "fire" anyone for AI to cause a significant impact. All AI needs to do is to allow companies postpone hiring more people. I really don't understand why you are being so obtuse about this. Do you honestly think that you can make the argument that software development (as an industry) is somehow immune to automation?

rglullis 3y ago

My translator friend speaks no Japanese. She used to work with English, German and Portuguese. The fact that translators are still not Professional-level (yet?) is no consolation for the thousands of other professionals like her. She retired already. > It can't replace a human. If it provides enough leverage to today to make one person 20x more productive, then it is effectively replacing 19 humans. When it is effective to make one employee 200x more efficient, it will replace 199 humans. And if you have enough hubris to think you are always going to be the lucky one out of the chopping block, it's not for lack of warning.

simion314 3y ago
>If it provides enough leverage to today to make one person 20x more productive, But this is not reality. Is this happening for your work? Or you read this somewhere ?
- rglullis 3y ago
  Sorry, my mistake. Replace "today" with "someday". For "today", I've seen good engineers solving specific tasks in a third of the time already, but I won't make specific claims about absolute productivity multipliers.
  - simion314 3y ago
    >For "today", I've seen good engineers solving specific tasks in a third of the time Specific is the important word here. Some boring tasks that can be automated in all jobs will be automated though you still need to check the AI. I assume no competent developer was fired because of that productivity boost in that specific task
    - rglullis 3y ago
      You don't need to "fire" anyone for AI to cause a significant impact. All AI needs to do is to allow companies postpone hiring more people. I really don't understand why you are being so obtuse about this. Do you honestly think that you can make the argument that software development (as an industry) is somehow immune to automation?