4 ms·

I think the concern isn't so much about the current state of AI replacing software engineers, but more "what if it keeps getting better at this same rate?" I d

I think the concern isn't so much about the current state of AI replacing software engineers, but more "what if it keeps getting better at this same rate?" I don't really agree with the reasoning [1], and I don't think we can expect this same rate of progress indefinitely, but I do understand the concern. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

echelon 1y ago
If software developers wind up replaced by AI, I think it's safe to say every industry's labor will be replaced. Trade jobs won't be far behind, because robotics will be nipping at their heels. If software falls, everything falls. But as we've seen, these models can't do the job themselves. They're best thought of as an exoskeleton that requires a pilot. They make mistakes, and those mistakes multiply into a mess if a human isn't around. They don't get the big picture, and it's not clear they ever will with the current models and techniques. The only field that has truly been disrupted is graphics design and art. The image and video models are sublime and truly deliver 10,000x speed, cost, and talent reductions. This is probably for three reasons: 1. There's so much straightforward training data 2. The laws of optics and structure seem correspondingly easier than the rules governing intelligence. Simple animals evolved vision hundreds of millions of years ago, and we have all the math and algorithmic implementations already. Not so, for intelligence. 3. Mistakes don't multiply. You can brush up the canvas easily and deliver the job as a smaller work than, say, a 100k LOC program with failure modes.
- tombert 1y ago
  I think this is making an assumption that the number of potential jobs is fixed. I don't agree with that assumption. I think as people learn how to use these tools then more industries pop up to use those tools. ETA: You updated your post and I think I agree with most of what you said after you updated.
- bc569a80a344f9c 1y ago
  > If software developers wind up replaced by AI, I think it's safe to say every industry's labor will be replaced. Trade jobs won't be far behind, because robotics will be nipping at their heels. If software falls, everything falls. I don’t think that follows at all. Robotics is notably much, much, much harder than AI/ML. You can replace programmers without robotics. You can’t replace trades without them.
  - ares623 1y ago
    There will be millions of meat based robots lining up to flood the market when every knowledge based worker is displaced.
    - esseph 1y ago
      Driving down the value of their labor, but still not competitive enough globally because it's just so much cheaper in other countries for that labor.
      - grumple 1y ago
        A laborer in Asia can't install plumbing in America, install electrical systems in America, etc... We also should end the exploitative nature of globalization. Outsourced work should be held to the same standards as laborers in modern countries (preferably EU, rather than American, standards).
  - echelon 1y ago
    > Robotics is notably much, much, much harder than AI/ML. Are you so sure? Almost every animal has solved locomotion, some even with incredibly primitive brains. Evolution knocked this out of the park hundreds of millions of years ago. Drosophila can do it, and we've mapped their brains. Only a few animals have solved reasoning. I'm sure the robotics videos I've seen lately have been cherry picked, but the results are nothing short of astounding. And there are now hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into solving it. I'd wager humans stumble across something evolution had a cake walk with before they stumble across the thing that's only happened once in the known universe.
- BobbyTables2 1y ago
  If AI robots can replace labor, then they’ll figure out humanity only gets in their way.
emseetech 1y ago
| "what if it keeps getting better at this same rate?" All relevant and recent evidence points to logarithmic improvement, not the exponential we were told (promised) in the beginning. We're likely waiting at this point for another breakthrough on the level of the attention paper. That could be next year, it could be 5-10 years from now, it could be 50 years from now. There's no point in prediction.
- tombert 1y ago
  Yeah, that's how I feel about it. People like to assume that progress is this steady upward line, but I think it's more like a staircase. Someone comes up with something cool, there's a lot of amazing progress in the short-to-mid term, and then things kind of level out. I mean, hell, this isn't even the first time that this has happened with AI [1]. The newer AI models are pretty cool but I think we're getting into the "leveling out" phase of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter
  - themafia 1y ago
    The main problem with the current technology, to my eye, is you need these huge multi dimensional models with extremely lossy encoding in order to implement the system on a modern CPU which is effectively a 2.5D piece of hardware that ultimately accesses a 1D array of memory. Your exponential problems have exponential problems. Scaling this system is factorially hard.
- themafia 1y ago
  > logarithmic improvement Relative to time. Not relative to capital investment. There it's nearly perfectly linear.
  - emseetech 1y ago
    I don't follow, can you explain more?
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
mitthrowaway2 1y ago
Jevons paradox doesn't always apply (it depends on the shape of supply-demand curves) and it is entirely possible for technology to eliminate careers. For example, a professional translator can work far faster now than twenty years ago, but the result is that positions for professional translators are rapidly disappearing rather than growing. There's a finite demand for paid translation work and it's fairly saturated. There are also far fewer personal secretaries now than there were in the '70s. That used to be a very common and reasonably well-paying career. It may happen that increasing the efficiency of software development results in even more and even-better-paid software developers, but this isn't a guaranteed outcome.
teaearlgraycold 1y ago
You imply the models have been improving in some capacity.
- Bolwin 1y ago
  You really think gpt 3 could do half the things current models do?
  - teaearlgraycold 1y ago
    Gotta go all the way back to GPT3 to make that point? Everything has plateaued since GPT4. And yes, they’ve added all sorts of nice features like structured outputs and big context windows.

echelon 1y ago

If software developers wind up replaced by AI, I think it's safe to say every industry's labor will be replaced. Trade jobs won't be far behind, because robotics will be nipping at their heels. If software falls, everything falls. But as we've seen, these models can't do the job themselves. They're best thought of as an exoskeleton that requires a pilot. They make mistakes, and those mistakes multiply into a mess if a human isn't around. They don't get the big picture, and it's not clear they ever will with the current models and techniques. The only field that has truly been disrupted is graphics design and art. The image and video models are sublime and truly deliver 10,000x speed, cost, and talent reductions. This is probably for three reasons: 1. There's so much straightforward training data 2. The laws of optics and structure seem correspondingly easier than the rules governing intelligence. Simple animals evolved vision hundreds of millions of years ago, and we have all the math and algorithmic implementations already. Not so, for intelligence. 3. Mistakes don't multiply. You can brush up the canvas easily and deliver the job as a smaller work than, say, a 100k LOC program with failure modes.

tombert 1y ago
I think this is making an assumption that the number of potential jobs is fixed. I don't agree with that assumption. I think as people learn how to use these tools then more industries pop up to use those tools. ETA: You updated your post and I think I agree with most of what you said after you updated.
bc569a80a344f9c 1y ago
> If software developers wind up replaced by AI, I think it's safe to say every industry's labor will be replaced. Trade jobs won't be far behind, because robotics will be nipping at their heels. If software falls, everything falls. I don’t think that follows at all. Robotics is notably much, much, much harder than AI/ML. You can replace programmers without robotics. You can’t replace trades without them.
- ares623 1y ago
  There will be millions of meat based robots lining up to flood the market when every knowledge based worker is displaced.
  - esseph 1y ago
    Driving down the value of their labor, but still not competitive enough globally because it's just so much cheaper in other countries for that labor.
    - grumple 1y ago
      A laborer in Asia can't install plumbing in America, install electrical systems in America, etc... We also should end the exploitative nature of globalization. Outsourced work should be held to the same standards as laborers in modern countries (preferably EU, rather than American, standards).
- echelon 1y ago
  > Robotics is notably much, much, much harder than AI/ML. Are you so sure? Almost every animal has solved locomotion, some even with incredibly primitive brains. Evolution knocked this out of the park hundreds of millions of years ago. Drosophila can do it, and we've mapped their brains. Only a few animals have solved reasoning. I'm sure the robotics videos I've seen lately have been cherry picked, but the results are nothing short of astounding. And there are now hundreds of billions of dollars being poured into solving it. I'd wager humans stumble across something evolution had a cake walk with before they stumble across the thing that's only happened once in the known universe.
BobbyTables2 1y ago
If AI robots can replace labor, then they’ll figure out humanity only gets in their way.

emseetech 1y ago

| "what if it keeps getting better at this same rate?" All relevant and recent evidence points to logarithmic improvement, not the exponential we were told (promised) in the beginning. We're likely waiting at this point for another breakthrough on the level of the attention paper. That could be next year, it could be 5-10 years from now, it could be 50 years from now. There's no point in prediction.

tombert 1y ago
Yeah, that's how I feel about it. People like to assume that progress is this steady upward line, but I think it's more like a staircase. Someone comes up with something cool, there's a lot of amazing progress in the short-to-mid term, and then things kind of level out. I mean, hell, this isn't even the first time that this has happened with AI [1]. The newer AI models are pretty cool but I think we're getting into the "leveling out" phase of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_winter
- themafia 1y ago
  The main problem with the current technology, to my eye, is you need these huge multi dimensional models with extremely lossy encoding in order to implement the system on a modern CPU which is effectively a 2.5D piece of hardware that ultimately accesses a 1D array of memory. Your exponential problems have exponential problems. Scaling this system is factorially hard.
themafia 1y ago
> logarithmic improvement Relative to time. Not relative to capital investment. There it's nearly perfectly linear.
- emseetech 1y ago
  I don't follow, can you explain more?
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

Jevons paradox doesn't always apply (it depends on the shape of supply-demand curves) and it is entirely possible for technology to eliminate careers. For example, a professional translator can work far faster now than twenty years ago, but the result is that positions for professional translators are rapidly disappearing rather than growing. There's a finite demand for paid translation work and it's fairly saturated. There are also far fewer personal secretaries now than there were in the '70s. That used to be a very common and reasonably well-paying career. It may happen that increasing the efficiency of software development results in even more and even-better-paid software developers, but this isn't a guaranteed outcome.

teaearlgraycold 1y ago

You imply the models have been improving in some capacity.

Bolwin 1y ago
You really think gpt 3 could do half the things current models do?
- teaearlgraycold 1y ago
  Gotta go all the way back to GPT3 to make that point? Everything has plateaued since GPT4. And yes, they’ve added all sorts of nice features like structured outputs and big context windows.