5 ms·

Appealing, but this is coming from someone smart/thoughtful. No offence to 'rest of world', but I think that most people have felt this way for years. And reali

Appealing, but this is coming from someone smart/thoughtful. No offence to 'rest of world', but I think that most people have felt this way for years. And realistically in a year, there won't be any people who can keep up.

airstrike 10mo ago
> And realistically in a year, there won't be any people who can keep up. Bold claim. They said the same thing at the start of this year.
- adventured 10mo ago
  You're all arguing over how many single digit years it'll take at this point. It doesn't matter if it takes another 12 or 36 months to make that claim true. It doesn't matter if it takes five years. Is AI coming for most of the software jobs? Yes it is. It's moving very quickly, and nothing can stop it. The progress has been particularly exceptionally clear (early GPT to Gemini 3 / Opus 4.5 / Codex).
  - bdangubic 10mo ago
    > Is AI coming for most of the software jobs? be cool to start with one before we move to most…
    - esafak 10mo ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46124063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46124063
yuedongze 10mo ago
im hoping this can introduce a framework to help people visualize the problem and figure out a way to close that gap. image generation is something every one can verify, but code generation is perhaps not. but if we can make verifying code as effortless as verifying images (not saying it's possible), then our productivity can enter the next level...
- drlobster 10mo ago
  I think you underestimating how good these image generators are at the moment.
  - yuedongze 10mo ago
    oh i mean the other direction! checking if a generated image is "good" that no one will tell something is off and it look naturally, rather than checking if they are fake.
dontlikeyoueith 10mo ago
> And realistically in a year, there won't be any people who can keep up. I've heard the same claim every year since GPT-3. It's still just as irrational as it was then.
- adventured 10mo ago
  You're rather dramatically demonstrating how remarkable the progress has been: GPT-3 was horrible at coding. Claude Opus 4.5 is good at it. They're already far faster than anybody on HN could ever be. Whether it takes another five years or ten, in that span of time nobody on HN will be able to keep up with the top tier models. It's not irrational, it's guaranteed. The progress has been extraordinary and obvious, the direction is certain, the outcome is certain. All that is left is to debate whether it's a couple of years or closer to a decade.
  - Arainach 10mo ago
    People claimed GPT-3 was great at coding when it launched. Those who said otherwise were dismissed. That has continued to be the case in every generation.
    - dwaltrip 10mo ago
      A bit reductive.
    - stale2002 10mo ago
      > People claimed GPT-3 was great at coding when it launched. Ok and they were wrong, but now people are right that it is great at coding. > That has continued to be the case in every generation. If something gets better over time, it is definitionally true that it was bad for every case in the past until it becomes good. But then it is good. Thats how that works. For everything. You are talking in tautologies while not understanding the implication of your arguments and how it applies to very general things like "A thing that improves over time".
    - esafak 10mo ago

airstrike 10mo ago

> And realistically in a year, there won't be any people who can keep up. Bold claim. They said the same thing at the start of this year.

adventured 10mo ago
You're all arguing over how many single digit years it'll take at this point. It doesn't matter if it takes another 12 or 36 months to make that claim true. It doesn't matter if it takes five years. Is AI coming for most of the software jobs? Yes it is. It's moving very quickly, and nothing can stop it. The progress has been particularly exceptionally clear (early GPT to Gemini 3 / Opus 4.5 / Codex).
- bdangubic 10mo ago
  > Is AI coming for most of the software jobs? be cool to start with one before we move to most…
  - esafak 10mo ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46124063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46124063

yuedongze 10mo ago

im hoping this can introduce a framework to help people visualize the problem and figure out a way to close that gap. image generation is something every one can verify, but code generation is perhaps not. but if we can make verifying code as effortless as verifying images (not saying it's possible), then our productivity can enter the next level...

drlobster 10mo ago
I think you underestimating how good these image generators are at the moment.
- yuedongze 10mo ago
  oh i mean the other direction! checking if a generated image is "good" that no one will tell something is off and it look naturally, rather than checking if they are fake.

dontlikeyoueith 10mo ago

> And realistically in a year, there won't be any people who can keep up. I've heard the same claim every year since GPT-3. It's still just as irrational as it was then.

adventured 10mo ago
You're rather dramatically demonstrating how remarkable the progress has been: GPT-3 was horrible at coding. Claude Opus 4.5 is good at it. They're already far faster than anybody on HN could ever be. Whether it takes another five years or ten, in that span of time nobody on HN will be able to keep up with the top tier models. It's not irrational, it's guaranteed. The progress has been extraordinary and obvious, the direction is certain, the outcome is certain. All that is left is to debate whether it's a couple of years or closer to a decade.
- Arainach 10mo ago
  People claimed GPT-3 was great at coding when it launched. Those who said otherwise were dismissed. That has continued to be the case in every generation.
  - dwaltrip 10mo ago
    A bit reductive.
  - stale2002 10mo ago
    > People claimed GPT-3 was great at coding when it launched. Ok and they were wrong, but now people are right that it is great at coding. > That has continued to be the case in every generation. If something gets better over time, it is definitionally true that it was bad for every case in the past until it becomes good. But then it is good. Thats how that works. For everything. You are talking in tautologies while not understanding the implication of your arguments and how it applies to very general things like "A thing that improves over time".
  - esafak 10mo ago