4 ms·

Is 'replacing' the right way to think of it though? I don't see any AI yet anywhere near good enough to literally do a person's job. But I can easily see it m

Is 'replacing' the right way to think of it though? I don't see any AI yet anywhere near good enough to literally do a person's job. But I can easily see it making someone, say 20%-50% more effective, based on my own experience using it for coding, data processing, lots of other things. So now you need 8 people instead of 10 people to do a job. That's still 2 people who won't be employed, but they haven't been 'replaced' by AI in the way people seem to think they will be.

f1shy 1y ago
Should be called enhancing?
voidUpdate 1y ago
I can see a lot of artists and graphics designers losing their jobs because sales people just generate ai crap instead
bondarchuk 1y ago
>That's still 2 people who won't be employed, but they haven't been 'replaced' by AI in the way people seem to think they will be. That's exactly what people mean by "replacing".
- frank_nitti 1y ago
  There are several commenters in this thread who actually see it as having zero software engineering team at all; there would not be a single person on staff who could read and understand application code. I would agree about needing fewer heads performing types of roles, and I could even buy that tech staff would hardly ever need to handwrite code directly. For serious projects where critical data, physical safety, etc for end users are at stake, I still don’t see the path toward simply having no in-house engineer to certify changes generated by an LLM
  - jonplackett 1y ago
    Basically I’m saying the same - I don’t think it’s gonna actually do an engineer’s job. But that this doesn’t mean engineers are all gonna be fine. To argue against myself though - it might just mean more/better code is written by the same number of engineers. If code gets cheaper, people will use more of it
- jonplackett 1y ago
  I don’t think they do - I think people feel like they’re somehow ‘safe’ because AI can’t do ALL of their job. My point is that it doesn’t have to and can still screw up the economics of your job. Maybe I’m just stating the obvious…

f1shy 1y ago

Should be called enhancing?

voidUpdate 1y ago

I can see a lot of artists and graphics designers losing their jobs because sales people just generate ai crap instead

bondarchuk 1y ago

>That's still 2 people who won't be employed, but they haven't been 'replaced' by AI in the way people seem to think they will be. That's exactly what people mean by "replacing".

frank_nitti 1y ago
There are several commenters in this thread who actually see it as having zero software engineering team at all; there would not be a single person on staff who could read and understand application code. I would agree about needing fewer heads performing types of roles, and I could even buy that tech staff would hardly ever need to handwrite code directly. For serious projects where critical data, physical safety, etc for end users are at stake, I still don’t see the path toward simply having no in-house engineer to certify changes generated by an LLM
- jonplackett 1y ago
  Basically I’m saying the same - I don’t think it’s gonna actually do an engineer’s job. But that this doesn’t mean engineers are all gonna be fine. To argue against myself though - it might just mean more/better code is written by the same number of engineers. If code gets cheaper, people will use more of it
jonplackett 1y ago
I don’t think they do - I think people feel like they’re somehow ‘safe’ because AI can’t do ALL of their job. My point is that it doesn’t have to and can still screw up the economics of your job. Maybe I’m just stating the obvious…