3 ms·

> 74% of 200 IT professionals surveyed worried their jobs will be replaced by AI tools Seriously? I can't speak for that 74%, but personally, I'm not worried.

by jaza 1y ago

> 74% of 200 IT professionals surveyed worried their jobs will be replaced by AI tools Seriously? I can't speak for that 74%, but personally, I'm not worried. AI is not that smart, and my job is not that dumb. And I'm just a garden variety (non-AI-specialising) Python back-end dev. How about the rest of y'all? Are you worried or are you meh?

eastbound 1y ago
All the remote programmers do a worse job than AI, that’s for sure.
- shahbaby 1y ago
  Not sure what you mean by this. Remote devs are usually better by necessity.
- danparsonson 1y ago
  No that's complete nonsense. I work for 100% remote company and we're all better at the job than current gen AI ;-)
  - eastbound 1y ago
    Yes I mistook remote for outsourced. Please understand it leniently, of course distance doesn’t make someone incompetent, but I’ve hired remote people and they clearly weren’t caring for my boat.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- __MatrixMan__ 1y ago
  Wow, I haven't run across this degree of workplace toxicity since the last time I was in an office. Mind telling us where you work so we can steer clear?
- woodpanel 1y ago
  Being a full remote dev for a decade now, I obviously disagree. There is of course a difference in where the remoteness comes from though: is it because the talent is that much in demand that it can just require it? Or is it because your employer is so cheap, he rather offshores the job to some emerging market, irrespective of the slop[1] he gets? [1] why EM code might be slop is another topic in itself but let’s just say: Good ppl from EMs don’t need to slave through slopshops
- gymbeaux 1y ago
  Remote or offshore? I’ve worked with offshore teams (Infosys) that were vastly inferior to ChatGPT for writing code. We’re talking declares variables out of scope and checks that code in to source control. We’re talking forgets to remove comments in copy-pasted code that clearly refer to another F100 company. We’re talking takes 3 days to implement a one-liner code change.
__MatrixMan__ 1y ago
I'm also a garden variety non AI-specializing back-end dev. I'm not worried. I wouldn't be shocked if AI got so good that in 10 years my company of 200 or so can't compete with 6 AI-enabled tweens. But if that actually happens then it's a whole new world governed by radically different economics. There's no use taking anxieties built for this world and projecting them into a future they don't fit with.
gymbeaux 1y ago
I would imagine the wording is very important here. Am I worried that my job will be replaced by AI tools? On one hand, I know that ChatGPT can’t replace me. On the other hand, companies seem seldom run by logic and empirical data these days. I’m worried that companies will attempt to replace SWEs with AI tools (even if it’s just halving the SWE department and saying “use ChatGPT to pick up the slack”). Offshoring comes in and out of fashion, but when it’s in fashion, it seems to take years before companies realize their mistake.
- photonthug 1y ago
  > On the other hand, companies seem seldom run by logic and empirical data these days. Yeah, this is the real worry. The vast majority of the decision-making people in business are not at all trying to actually decide what is good for the business, they are trying to decide what is good for themselves. As such it's not "can we effectively and efficiently fire people and replace them with robots and expect the business to continue to exist in a year". Instead it's more like "Can I get a bonus next quarter if I cut costs this quarter?". People who are sitting around very rationally trying to discuss how much AI is improving or how fast are missing the point I'd say. Powerful people don't think in those kind of terms as far as the ground truth of things. Usually they are more interested in controlling the conversation and seizing initiative. They are happy to blow up the companies / countries / industries they operate in and depend on, because they can always find a way to profit from the chaos.
  - gymbeaux 1y ago
    Short-term thinking is a big problem. I'm not sure why the stock market continues to grow despite short-term thinking absolutely destroying stalwarts like Boeing, GE, Intel, et al. I suppose part of the stock market's perceived-success over the last 20 years is that short-term thinking- in the form of buybacks. I'll never forget that United Airlines ($UAL) needed that huge government bailout in 2020 when COVID hit because they had just spent ALL of their cash on stock buybacks. Actually, not to go on a tangent, the airline industry has decades and decades of proof that the U.S. government won't let them fail. United basically had the United States' blessing to blow all their cash reserves. Another part of the equation are apps like Robinhood that have opened the floodgates and enabled the lower and middle classes to invest in the stock market (however recklessly). When you consider the stock market is just one big Ponzi scheme (the newcomers support the old-timers with fresh capital and enable them to retire) you see it as less of a "no-brainer, guaranteed road to wealth" and more of the hunting ground that it really is- where the 1% steal from the rest of us using "tools" like market volatility to scare people into selling at a loss. Fun fact: Robinhood now offers IRAs, and allows you to TRADE OPTIONS with your IRA. This should 1000% be illegal.
HideousKojima 1y ago
Not worried about AI replacing my job in the foreseeable (10+ years) future, it's just not that impressive. I am worried about executives thinking it's the future and making even dumber hiring decisions based on that.
000ooo000 1y ago
I'm worried about AI changing the shape of my job to the point of it being unstimulating and soul sucking. I enjoy the challenges, solving problems, achieving what others (peers) tried and failed to. Knowing that continuing to develop these skills also keeps my mind sharp is motivating, too. If I lose that, this is just a boring corporate role among dullards. If one of the idiots in my reporting line decides AI should be mandated (e.g. Shopify dunce), that's the end for me. I have no interest in being spoonfed by a chatbot and being accountable for it.

by jaza 1y ago

eastbound 1y ago

All the remote programmers do a worse job than AI, that’s for sure.

shahbaby 1y ago
Not sure what you mean by this. Remote devs are usually better by necessity.
danparsonson 1y ago
No that's complete nonsense. I work for 100% remote company and we're all better at the job than current gen AI ;-)
- eastbound 1y ago
  Yes I mistook remote for outsourced. Please understand it leniently, of course distance doesn’t make someone incompetent, but I’ve hired remote people and they clearly weren’t caring for my boat.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
__MatrixMan__ 1y ago
Wow, I haven't run across this degree of workplace toxicity since the last time I was in an office. Mind telling us where you work so we can steer clear?
woodpanel 1y ago
Being a full remote dev for a decade now, I obviously disagree. There is of course a difference in where the remoteness comes from though: is it because the talent is that much in demand that it can just require it? Or is it because your employer is so cheap, he rather offshores the job to some emerging market, irrespective of the slop[1] he gets? [1] why EM code might be slop is another topic in itself but let’s just say: Good ppl from EMs don’t need to slave through slopshops
gymbeaux 1y ago
Remote or offshore? I’ve worked with offshore teams (Infosys) that were vastly inferior to ChatGPT for writing code. We’re talking declares variables out of scope and checks that code in to source control. We’re talking forgets to remove comments in copy-pasted code that clearly refer to another F100 company. We’re talking takes 3 days to implement a one-liner code change.

__MatrixMan__ 1y ago

I'm also a garden variety non AI-specializing back-end dev. I'm not worried. I wouldn't be shocked if AI got so good that in 10 years my company of 200 or so can't compete with 6 AI-enabled tweens. But if that actually happens then it's a whole new world governed by radically different economics. There's no use taking anxieties built for this world and projecting them into a future they don't fit with.

gymbeaux 1y ago

I would imagine the wording is very important here. Am I worried that my job will be replaced by AI tools? On one hand, I know that ChatGPT can’t replace me. On the other hand, companies seem seldom run by logic and empirical data these days. I’m worried that companies will attempt to replace SWEs with AI tools (even if it’s just halving the SWE department and saying “use ChatGPT to pick up the slack”). Offshoring comes in and out of fashion, but when it’s in fashion, it seems to take years before companies realize their mistake.

photonthug 1y ago
> On the other hand, companies seem seldom run by logic and empirical data these days. Yeah, this is the real worry. The vast majority of the decision-making people in business are not at all trying to actually decide what is good for the business, they are trying to decide what is good for themselves. As such it's not "can we effectively and efficiently fire people and replace them with robots and expect the business to continue to exist in a year". Instead it's more like "Can I get a bonus next quarter if I cut costs this quarter?". People who are sitting around very rationally trying to discuss how much AI is improving or how fast are missing the point I'd say. Powerful people don't think in those kind of terms as far as the ground truth of things. Usually they are more interested in controlling the conversation and seizing initiative. They are happy to blow up the companies / countries / industries they operate in and depend on, because they can always find a way to profit from the chaos.
- gymbeaux 1y ago
  Short-term thinking is a big problem. I'm not sure why the stock market continues to grow despite short-term thinking absolutely destroying stalwarts like Boeing, GE, Intel, et al. I suppose part of the stock market's perceived-success over the last 20 years is that short-term thinking- in the form of buybacks. I'll never forget that United Airlines ($UAL) needed that huge government bailout in 2020 when COVID hit because they had just spent ALL of their cash on stock buybacks. Actually, not to go on a tangent, the airline industry has decades and decades of proof that the U.S. government won't let them fail. United basically had the United States' blessing to blow all their cash reserves. Another part of the equation are apps like Robinhood that have opened the floodgates and enabled the lower and middle classes to invest in the stock market (however recklessly). When you consider the stock market is just one big Ponzi scheme (the newcomers support the old-timers with fresh capital and enable them to retire) you see it as less of a "no-brainer, guaranteed road to wealth" and more of the hunting ground that it really is- where the 1% steal from the rest of us using "tools" like market volatility to scare people into selling at a loss. Fun fact: Robinhood now offers IRAs, and allows you to TRADE OPTIONS with your IRA. This should 1000% be illegal.

HideousKojima 1y ago

Not worried about AI replacing my job in the foreseeable (10+ years) future, it's just not that impressive. I am worried about executives thinking it's the future and making even dumber hiring decisions based on that.

000ooo000 1y ago

I'm worried about AI changing the shape of my job to the point of it being unstimulating and soul sucking. I enjoy the challenges, solving problems, achieving what others (peers) tried and failed to. Knowing that continuing to develop these skills also keeps my mind sharp is motivating, too. If I lose that, this is just a boring corporate role among dullards. If one of the idiots in my reporting line decides AI should be mandated (e.g. Shopify dunce), that's the end for me. I have no interest in being spoonfed by a chatbot and being accountable for it.