4 ms·

It depends how good the AI becomes. There aren't a lot of horses employed for commercial transportation any more.

by baggy_trough 2y ago

pants2 2y ago
If we had some sort of enhancement that makes horses 500% faster and stronger, we probably would.
- recursive 2y ago
  Don't think so. They need medical care, food. And a 500% strength horse is still not as fast as a semi truck.
  - goatlover 2y ago
    Automobiles need maintenance and fuel. Both of which created additional jobs.
    - recursive 2y ago
      Those jobs will only exist as long as they're necessary.
- loco5niner 2y ago
  Maybe that's why we measure the transportation vehicles they were replaced by in horsepower.
captainkrtek 2y ago
Cars didn’t eliminate the need for someone to still operate transportation, going from horses to cars to ships just changed the vessel and if anything opened up more jobs as efficiency increased. We may have to adjust our roles as software engineers, but wholesale eliminating the role as a job family feels a bit difficult to picture. When software written by an LLM (which has been trained on human written code) ultimately fails or has some bug/edge case, I don’t think TPMs will have much fun debugging outages via their LLM..
- famouswaffles 2y ago
  Horses were never employed for operating transportation and so the analogy was never about the change to operating transportation. It's about the mode of transportation itself. If AI gets as good as the people building it hope it will, then it doesn't matter what new jobs crop up or what opportunities there are left to uncover, the machine will just handle it.
loco5niner 2y ago
Wrong analogy. The horse wasn't employed, the driver was. The horse was just a tool used by the driver.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  Faulty logic. The horse was the best means to an end; currently, human programmers are the best means to a different end.
  - loco5niner 2y ago
    Your argument will only apply when humans are no longer needed at any point in the pipeline.
    - baggy_trough 2y ago
      I fail to see why you think so. The better AI becomes, the less need for humans in the pipeline there may be, even if that number is not zero.
      - loco5niner 2y ago
        Someone still needs to communicate to the computer exactly what they want and the computer has to understand that. So far, that has been tried unsuccessfully many times, and I don't see that changing with AI

It depends how good the AI becomes. There aren't a lot of horses employed for commercial transportation any more.

pants2 2y ago

If we had some sort of enhancement that makes horses 500% faster and stronger, we probably would.

recursive 2y ago
Don't think so. They need medical care, food. And a 500% strength horse is still not as fast as a semi truck.
- goatlover 2y ago
  Automobiles need maintenance and fuel. Both of which created additional jobs.
  - recursive 2y ago
    Those jobs will only exist as long as they're necessary.
loco5niner 2y ago
Maybe that's why we measure the transportation vehicles they were replaced by in horsepower.

captainkrtek 2y ago

Cars didn’t eliminate the need for someone to still operate transportation, going from horses to cars to ships just changed the vessel and if anything opened up more jobs as efficiency increased. We may have to adjust our roles as software engineers, but wholesale eliminating the role as a job family feels a bit difficult to picture. When software written by an LLM (which has been trained on human written code) ultimately fails or has some bug/edge case, I don’t think TPMs will have much fun debugging outages via their LLM..

famouswaffles 2y ago
Horses were never employed for operating transportation and so the analogy was never about the change to operating transportation. It's about the mode of transportation itself. If AI gets as good as the people building it hope it will, then it doesn't matter what new jobs crop up or what opportunities there are left to uncover, the machine will just handle it.

loco5niner 2y ago

Wrong analogy. The horse wasn't employed, the driver was. The horse was just a tool used by the driver.

baggy_trough 2y ago
Faulty logic. The horse was the best means to an end; currently, human programmers are the best means to a different end.
- loco5niner 2y ago
  Your argument will only apply when humans are no longer needed at any point in the pipeline.
  - baggy_trough 2y ago
    I fail to see why you think so. The better AI becomes, the less need for humans in the pipeline there may be, even if that number is not zero.
    - loco5niner 2y ago
      Someone still needs to communicate to the computer exactly what they want and the computer has to understand that. So far, that has been tried unsuccessfully many times, and I don't see that changing with AI