4 ms·

I think what you're describing is going to be a very short transitional period. Once current AI gets good enough, the people micromanaging parts of it will do

I think what you're describing is going to be a very short transitional period. Once current AI gets good enough, the people micromanaging parts of it will do more to hinder the process than to help it. One person setting the objectives and the AI handling literally everything else including brainstorming issues etc, is going to be all that's needed.

yoyohello13 2y ago
> One person setting the objectives and the AI handling literally everything else including brainstorming issues etc, is going to be all that's needed. A person just setting the prompt and letting the AI do all the work is not adding any additional value. Any other person can come in and perform the exact same task. The only way to actually provide differentiation in this scenario is to either build your own models, or micromanage the outputs.
esafak 2y ago
What are you going to do when the output is wrong? You're not expecting it to always be right, are you?
- rybosworld 2y ago
  I said this in another comment but look at the leading chess engines. They are already so far above human level of play that having a human override the engines choice will nearly always lead to a worse position. > You're not expecting it to always be right, are you? I think another thing that gets lost in these conversations is that humans already produce things that are "wrong". That's what bugs are. AI will also sometimes create things that have bugs and that's fine so long as they do so at a rate lower than human software developers. We already don't expect humans to write absolutely perfect software so it's unreasonable to expect that AI will do so.
- hatefulmoron 2y ago
  I don't expect any code to be right the first time. I would imagine if it's intelligent enough to ask the right questions, research, and write an implementation, it's intelligent enough to do some debugging.

yoyohello13 2y ago

> One person setting the objectives and the AI handling literally everything else including brainstorming issues etc, is going to be all that's needed. A person just setting the prompt and letting the AI do all the work is not adding any additional value. Any other person can come in and perform the exact same task. The only way to actually provide differentiation in this scenario is to either build your own models, or micromanage the outputs.

esafak 2y ago

What are you going to do when the output is wrong? You're not expecting it to always be right, are you?

rybosworld 2y ago
I said this in another comment but look at the leading chess engines. They are already so far above human level of play that having a human override the engines choice will nearly always lead to a worse position. > You're not expecting it to always be right, are you? I think another thing that gets lost in these conversations is that humans already produce things that are "wrong". That's what bugs are. AI will also sometimes create things that have bugs and that's fine so long as they do so at a rate lower than human software developers. We already don't expect humans to write absolutely perfect software so it's unreasonable to expect that AI will do so.
hatefulmoron 2y ago
I don't expect any code to be right the first time. I would imagine if it's intelligent enough to ask the right questions, research, and write an implementation, it's intelligent enough to do some debugging.