4 ms·

The question is, for how long?

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
jppittma 1y ago
It's really gonna depend on the project. When my hobby project was greenfield, the AI was way better than I am. It was (still is) more knowledgable about the standards that govern the field and about low level interface details. It can shit out a bunch of code that relies on knowing these details in seconds/minutes, rather than hours/days. Now that the project has grown and all that stuff is hammered out, it can't seem to consistently write code that compiles. It's very tunnel visioned on the specific file its generating, rather than where that fits in the context of what/how we're building what we're building.
- sixQuarks 1y ago
  Again, the question is for how long
- jonator 1y ago
  We can slightly squeeze more juice out of them with larger projects by providing better context, docs, examples of what we want, background knowledge, etc. Like people, LLMs don't know what they don't know (about your project).
sixQuarks 1y ago
Exactly! We’ve been seeing more and more posts like this, saying how AI will never take developer jobs or will never be as good as coders. I think it’s some sort of coping mechanism. These posts are gonna look really silly in the not too distant future. I get it, spending countless hours honing your craft and knowing that AI will soon make almost everything you learned useless is very scary.
- sofal 1y ago
  I'm constantly disappointed by how little I'm able to delegate to AI after the unending promises that I'll be able to delegate nearly 100% of what I do now "in the not too distant future". It's tired impatience and merited skepticism that you mistake for fear and coping. Just because people aren't on the hype train with you doesn't mean they're afraid.
  - vouaobrasil 1y ago
    Personally, I am. Lots of unusual skills I have, have already been taken by AI. That's not to say I think I'm in trouble, but I think it's sad I can't apply some of these skills that I learned just a couple of years ago like audio editing because AI does it now. Neither do I want to work as an AI operator, which I find boring and depressing. So, I've just moved onto something else, but it's still discouraging. Also, so many people said the same thing about chess when the first chess programs came out. "It will never beat an international master." Then, "it will never beat a grandmaster." And Kasparov said, "it would never beat me or Karpov." Look where we are today. Can humanity adapt? Yes, probably. But that new world IMO is worse than it is today, rather lacking in dignity I'd say.
    - sofal 1y ago
      I don't acquire skills and apply them just to be able to apply them. I use them to solve problems and create things. My learned skills for processing audio are for the purpose of getting the audio sounding the way I want it to sound. If an AI can do that for me instead, that's amazing and frees up my time to do other things or do a lot more different audio things. None of this is scary to me or impacts my personal dignity. I'm actually constantly wishing that AI could help me do even more. Honestly I'm not even sure what you mean by AI doing audio editing, can I get some of that? That is some grunt work I don't need more of.
      - vouaobrasil 1y ago
        I acquire skills to enjoy applying them, period. I'm less concerned about the final result than about the process to get there. That's the different between technical types and artist types I suppose. Edit: I also should say, we REALLY should distinguish between tasks that you find enjoyable and tasks you find just drudgery to get where you want to go. For you, audio editing might be a drudgery but for me it's enjoyable. For you, debugging might be fun but I hate it. Etc. But the point is, if AI takes away everything which people find enjoyable, then no one can pick and choose to earn a living on those subset of tasks that they find enjoyable because AI can do everything. Programmers tend to assume that AI will just take the boring tasks, because high-level software engineering is what they enjoy and unlikely to be automated, but there's a WHOLE world of people out there who enjoy other tasks that can be automated by AI.
spion 1y ago
Vibe-wise, it seems like progress is slowing down and recent models aren't substantially better than their predecessors. But it would be interesting to take a well-trusted benchmark and plot max_performance_until_date(foreach month). (Too bad aider changed recently and there aren't many older models; https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/by-release-date.html https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/by-release-date.html has not been updated in a while with newer stuff, and the new benchmark doesn't have the classic models such as 3.5, 3.5 turbo, 4, claude 3 opus)
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  I think that we can't expect continuous progress either, though. Often in computer science it's more discrete, and unexpected. Computer chess was basically stagnant until one team, even the evolution of species often behaves in a punctuated way rather than as a sum of many small adaptations. I'm much more interested (worried) of what the world will be like in 30 years, rather than in the next 5.
  - spion 1y ago
    Its hard to say. Historically new discoveries in AI often generated great excitement and high expectations, followed by some progress, then stalling, disillusionment and AI winter. Maybe this time it will be different. Either way what was achieved so far is already a huge deal.
kilroy123 1y ago
My crackpot guess is ~5 years. The incentives are just too damn high to not keep innovating in the space. We'll find new ways to push the tech.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

It's really gonna depend on the project. When my hobby project was greenfield, the AI was way better than I am. It was (still is) more knowledgable about the standards that govern the field and about low level interface details. It can shit out a bunch of code that relies on knowing these details in seconds/minutes, rather than hours/days. Now that the project has grown and all that stuff is hammered out, it can't seem to consistently write code that compiles. It's very tunnel visioned on the specific file its generating, rather than where that fits in the context of what/how we're building what we're building.

sixQuarks 1y ago
Again, the question is for how long
jonator 1y ago
We can slightly squeeze more juice out of them with larger projects by providing better context, docs, examples of what we want, background knowledge, etc. Like people, LLMs don't know what they don't know (about your project).

sixQuarks 1y ago

Exactly! We’ve been seeing more and more posts like this, saying how AI will never take developer jobs or will never be as good as coders. I think it’s some sort of coping mechanism. These posts are gonna look really silly in the not too distant future. I get it, spending countless hours honing your craft and knowing that AI will soon make almost everything you learned useless is very scary.

sofal 1y ago
I'm constantly disappointed by how little I'm able to delegate to AI after the unending promises that I'll be able to delegate nearly 100% of what I do now "in the not too distant future". It's tired impatience and merited skepticism that you mistake for fear and coping. Just because people aren't on the hype train with you doesn't mean they're afraid.
- vouaobrasil 1y ago
  Personally, I am. Lots of unusual skills I have, have already been taken by AI. That's not to say I think I'm in trouble, but I think it's sad I can't apply some of these skills that I learned just a couple of years ago like audio editing because AI does it now. Neither do I want to work as an AI operator, which I find boring and depressing. So, I've just moved onto something else, but it's still discouraging. Also, so many people said the same thing about chess when the first chess programs came out. "It will never beat an international master." Then, "it will never beat a grandmaster." And Kasparov said, "it would never beat me or Karpov." Look where we are today. Can humanity adapt? Yes, probably. But that new world IMO is worse than it is today, rather lacking in dignity I'd say.
  - sofal 1y ago
    I don't acquire skills and apply them just to be able to apply them. I use them to solve problems and create things. My learned skills for processing audio are for the purpose of getting the audio sounding the way I want it to sound. If an AI can do that for me instead, that's amazing and frees up my time to do other things or do a lot more different audio things. None of this is scary to me or impacts my personal dignity. I'm actually constantly wishing that AI could help me do even more. Honestly I'm not even sure what you mean by AI doing audio editing, can I get some of that? That is some grunt work I don't need more of.
    - vouaobrasil 1y ago
      I acquire skills to enjoy applying them, period. I'm less concerned about the final result than about the process to get there. That's the different between technical types and artist types I suppose. Edit: I also should say, we REALLY should distinguish between tasks that you find enjoyable and tasks you find just drudgery to get where you want to go. For you, audio editing might be a drudgery but for me it's enjoyable. For you, debugging might be fun but I hate it. Etc. But the point is, if AI takes away everything which people find enjoyable, then no one can pick and choose to earn a living on those subset of tasks that they find enjoyable because AI can do everything. Programmers tend to assume that AI will just take the boring tasks, because high-level software engineering is what they enjoy and unlikely to be automated, but there's a WHOLE world of people out there who enjoy other tasks that can be automated by AI.

spion 1y ago

Vibe-wise, it seems like progress is slowing down and recent models aren't substantially better than their predecessors. But it would be interesting to take a well-trusted benchmark and plot max_performance_until_date(foreach month). (Too bad aider changed recently and there aren't many older models; https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/by-release-date.html https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/by-release-date.html has not been updated in a while with newer stuff, and the new benchmark doesn't have the classic models such as 3.5, 3.5 turbo, 4, claude 3 opus)

vouaobrasil 1y ago
I think that we can't expect continuous progress either, though. Often in computer science it's more discrete, and unexpected. Computer chess was basically stagnant until one team, even the evolution of species often behaves in a punctuated way rather than as a sum of many small adaptations. I'm much more interested (worried) of what the world will be like in 30 years, rather than in the next 5.
- spion 1y ago
  Its hard to say. Historically new discoveries in AI often generated great excitement and high expectations, followed by some progress, then stalling, disillusionment and AI winter. Maybe this time it will be different. Either way what was achieved so far is already a huge deal.

kilroy123 1y ago

My crackpot guess is ~5 years. The incentives are just too damn high to not keep innovating in the space. We'll find new ways to push the tech.