3 ms·

So your point is that since anyone can use an elevator, we’re all “elevator operators”? So basically that everyone will be a software writer, therefore nobody

• 9rx 2y ago
  Does having a point not imply some kind of effort to communicate with a human, not sending strings of text to a faceless, inanimate computer program like I am doing? Furthermore, even if I had some reason to make a point to a computer program, if such a thing is possible, it still could not be my point. It explicitly states that it is taken from the perspective of the grifter. If there is a point found in there somewhere, it would be their point.
  • herval 2y ago
    ...what?
• frank_nitti 2y ago
  Not GP but I'd say yes - if and when computers are as easy to operate to their desired potential, with as simple an interface as elevator buttons, then of course. The operations we desire from computing systems has a bit broader scope than elevators. Just as we still need experts in electrical hardware systems to fix/improve the implementations of those simple elevator interfaces - we will still need people to understand the "hard part" underneath all of these, even if Average Joe can make apps for himself (as long as they only involved 'solved problems' the models can apply). The fact that the AI grifters are calling for children to stop studying computer science that seems transparently reckless and self-serving, though I'd love to hear if any informed users on HN have any insightful arguments in support of Jensen Huang et al