3 ms·

Google Coding is definitely a real problem. And I can't believe how wrong some of the answers on Stack Overflow are. But the real problems are managerial. Ston

Google Coding is definitely a real problem. And I can't believe how wrong some of the answers on Stack Overflow are. But the real problems are managerial. Stonks must go up, and if that means chasing a ridiculous fantasy of replacing your workforce with LLMs then let's do that!!!!111!! It's all fun and games until you realise you can't run a consumer economy without consumers. Maybe the CEOs have decided they don't need workers or consumers any more. They're too busy marching into a bold future of AI and robot factories. Good luck with that. If there's anyone around a century from now trying to make sense of what's happening today, it's going to look like a collective psychotic episode to them.

robertlagrant 2y ago
I don't think this is anyone's plan. It's the biggest argument against why it won't be the plan: who'll pay for all of it? Unless we can Factorio the world, it seems more likely we just won't do that.
supergarfield 2y ago
> It's all fun and games until you realise you can't run a consumer economy without consumers. If the issue is that the AI can't code, then yes you shouldn't replace the programmers: not because they're good consumers, just because you still need programmers. But if the AI can replace programmers, then it's strange to argue that programmers should still get employed just so they can get money to consume, even though they're obsolete. You seem to be arguing that jobs should never be eliminated due to technical advances, because that's removing a consumer from the market?
- MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
  The natural conclusion I see is dropping the delusion that every human must work to live. If automation progresses to a point that machines and AI can do 99% of useful work, there's an argument to be made for letting humanity finally stop toiling, and letting the perhaps 10% of people who really want to do the work do the work. The idea that "everybody must work" keeps harmful industries alive in the name of jobs. It keeps bullshit jobs alive in the name of jobs. It is a drain on progress, efficiency, and the economy as a whole. There are a ton of jobs that we'd be better off just paying everybody in them the same amount of money to simply not do them.
  - chubot 2y ago
    The problem is that such a conclusion is not stable We could decide this one minute, and the next minute it will be UN-decided There is no "global world order", no global authority -- it is a shifting balance of power --- A more likely situation is that the things AI can't do will increase in value. Put another way, the COMPLEMENTS to AI will increase in value. One big example is things that exist in the physical world -- construction, repair, in-person service like restaurants and hotels, live events like sports and music (see all the ticket prices going up), mining and drilling, electric power, building data centers, manufacturing, etc. Take self-driving cars vs. LLMs. The thing people were surprised by is that the self-driving hype came first, and died first -- likely because it requires near perfect reliability in the physical world. AI isn't good at that LLMs came later, but had more commercial appeal, because they don't have to deal with the physical world, or be reliable So there are are still going to many domains of WORK that AI can't touch. But it just may not be the things that you or I are good at :) --- The world changes -- there is never going to be some final decision of "humans don't have to work" Work will still need to be done -- just different kinds of work. I would say that a lot of knowledge work is in the form of "bullshit jobs" [1] In fact a reliable test of a "bullshit job" might be how much of it can be done by an LLM So it might be time for the money and reward to shift back to people who accomplish things in the physical world! Or maybe even the social world. I imagine that in-person sales will become more valuable too. The more people converse with LLMs, I think the more they will cherish the experience of conversing with a real person! Even if it's a sales call lol [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
    - jvanderbot 2y ago
      To say that self driving cars (a decade later with several real products rolling out) has the same, or lesser, commercial appeal than LLMs now (a year/two in, with mostly VC hype) is a bit incorrect. Early on in AV cycles there was enormous hype for AVs, akin to LLMs. We thought truck drivers were done for. We thought accidents were a thing of the past. It kicked off a similar panic among tangential fields. Small AV startups were everywhere, and folks were selling their company to go start a new one then sell that company for enormous wealth gains. Yet 5 years later none of the "level 5" promises they made were coming true. In hindsight, as you say, it was obvious. But it sure tarnished the CEO prediction record a bit, don't you think? It's just hard to believe that this time is different.

robertlagrant 2y ago

I don't think this is anyone's plan. It's the biggest argument against why it won't be the plan: who'll pay for all of it? Unless we can Factorio the world, it seems more likely we just won't do that.

supergarfield 2y ago

> It's all fun and games until you realise you can't run a consumer economy without consumers. If the issue is that the AI can't code, then yes you shouldn't replace the programmers: not because they're good consumers, just because you still need programmers. But if the AI can replace programmers, then it's strange to argue that programmers should still get employed just so they can get money to consume, even though they're obsolete. You seem to be arguing that jobs should never be eliminated due to technical advances, because that's removing a consumer from the market?

MyOutfitIsVague 2y ago
The natural conclusion I see is dropping the delusion that every human must work to live. If automation progresses to a point that machines and AI can do 99% of useful work, there's an argument to be made for letting humanity finally stop toiling, and letting the perhaps 10% of people who really want to do the work do the work. The idea that "everybody must work" keeps harmful industries alive in the name of jobs. It keeps bullshit jobs alive in the name of jobs. It is a drain on progress, efficiency, and the economy as a whole. There are a ton of jobs that we'd be better off just paying everybody in them the same amount of money to simply not do them.
- chubot 2y ago
  The problem is that such a conclusion is not stable We could decide this one minute, and the next minute it will be UN-decided There is no "global world order", no global authority -- it is a shifting balance of power --- A more likely situation is that the things AI can't do will increase in value. Put another way, the COMPLEMENTS to AI will increase in value. One big example is things that exist in the physical world -- construction, repair, in-person service like restaurants and hotels, live events like sports and music (see all the ticket prices going up), mining and drilling, electric power, building data centers, manufacturing, etc. Take self-driving cars vs. LLMs. The thing people were surprised by is that the self-driving hype came first, and died first -- likely because it requires near perfect reliability in the physical world. AI isn't good at that LLMs came later, but had more commercial appeal, because they don't have to deal with the physical world, or be reliable So there are are still going to many domains of WORK that AI can't touch. But it just may not be the things that you or I are good at :) --- The world changes -- there is never going to be some final decision of "humans don't have to work" Work will still need to be done -- just different kinds of work. I would say that a lot of knowledge work is in the form of "bullshit jobs" [1] In fact a reliable test of a "bullshit job" might be how much of it can be done by an LLM So it might be time for the money and reward to shift back to people who accomplish things in the physical world! Or maybe even the social world. I imagine that in-person sales will become more valuable too. The more people converse with LLMs, I think the more they will cherish the experience of conversing with a real person! Even if it's a sales call lol [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs
  - jvanderbot 2y ago
    To say that self driving cars (a decade later with several real products rolling out) has the same, or lesser, commercial appeal than LLMs now (a year/two in, with mostly VC hype) is a bit incorrect. Early on in AV cycles there was enormous hype for AVs, akin to LLMs. We thought truck drivers were done for. We thought accidents were a thing of the past. It kicked off a similar panic among tangential fields. Small AV startups were everywhere, and folks were selling their company to go start a new one then sell that company for enormous wealth gains. Yet 5 years later none of the "level 5" promises they made were coming true. In hindsight, as you say, it was obvious. But it sure tarnished the CEO prediction record a bit, don't you think? It's just hard to believe that this time is different.