5 ms·

And you/we will be replaced by an AI that will solve the business problem (the day they get so good to actually do that, which might happen or not but... who kn

And you/we will be replaced by an AI that will solve the business problem (the day they get so good to actually do that, which might happen or not but... who knows?)

rybosworld 11mo ago
And the person that hand-writes the code won't be replaced?
- darkwater 11mo ago
  Yes, as well. There aare probably 2 ways to see te future of LLMs / AI: they are either going to have the capabilities to replace all white collar work, or they are not. If you think they are going to replace us, then yo ucan either surrender or fight back, and personally I read all these anti-AI posts as fighting back, to help people realize we might be digging our own grave. If, OTOH, you see AI as a force-multiplier tool that's never going to completely replace a human developer then yes, probably the smartest thing to do is to learn how to master this new tool, but at the same time keep in mind the side effects it might bring, like atrophy.
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    My personal goal has been to dig that grave ever since I could hold a shovel. We've always been in the business of replacing humans in the 3-D's space (dirty, dangerous, dull... And to be clear. data manipulation for its own sake is dull). If we make AI that replaces 90% of what I do at my desk every day... We did it. We realized the dream from the old Tom Swift novels where he comes up with an idea for an invention and hands the idea off to his computer to extrapolate it, or the ship's computer in Star Trek acting like a perfect engineering and analytical assistant to take fuzzy asks from humans and turn them into useful output.
    - rybosworld 11mo ago
      The problem is that this time, we're creating a competing intelligence that in theory could replace all work, AND, that competing intelligence is ultimately owned/controlled by a few dozen very rich guys. They aren't going to willingly spread the wealth.
  - rybosworld 11mo ago
    Realistically I think the only way to fight back is unions.
sallveburrpi 11mo ago
I really really hope an AI will do this work and solve all the “business problems” so I can go and be a goat herder
- noman-land 11mo ago
  Go herd goats. You don't need to wait for AI to destroy your livelihood.
  - defterGoose 11mo ago
    Yeah, but there's nothing like some sweet, sweet justification.
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    Herding goats doesn't solve the interesting technical problem I'm trying to solve. Point is: if that problem is solvable without me, that's the win condition for everyone. Then I go herd goats (and have this nifty tool that helps me spec out an optimal goat fence while I'm at it).
    - lelanthran 11mo ago
      > Point is: if that problem is solvable without me, that's the win condition for everyone. The problem is solvable without you. I don't even need to know what the problem actually is, because the odds of you being one of the handful of the people in the world who are so critical that the world notices their passing is so low, I have a better chance of winning a lottery jackpot than of you being some critical piece of some solution.
      - sallveburrpi 11mo ago
        I completely disagree - I think it’s the other way around. Solving the problem - no matter what problem it is - is extremely dependent on you and every single human being (or animal for that matter) is a critical piece of their environment and circumstances.

And you/we will be replaced by an AI that will solve the business problem (the day they get so good to actually do that, which might happen or not but... who knows?)

rybosworld 11mo ago

And the person that hand-writes the code won't be replaced?

darkwater 11mo ago
Yes, as well. There aare probably 2 ways to see te future of LLMs / AI: they are either going to have the capabilities to replace all white collar work, or they are not. If you think they are going to replace us, then yo ucan either surrender or fight back, and personally I read all these anti-AI posts as fighting back, to help people realize we might be digging our own grave. If, OTOH, you see AI as a force-multiplier tool that's never going to completely replace a human developer then yes, probably the smartest thing to do is to learn how to master this new tool, but at the same time keep in mind the side effects it might bring, like atrophy.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  My personal goal has been to dig that grave ever since I could hold a shovel. We've always been in the business of replacing humans in the 3-D's space (dirty, dangerous, dull... And to be clear. data manipulation for its own sake is dull). If we make AI that replaces 90% of what I do at my desk every day... We did it. We realized the dream from the old Tom Swift novels where he comes up with an idea for an invention and hands the idea off to his computer to extrapolate it, or the ship's computer in Star Trek acting like a perfect engineering and analytical assistant to take fuzzy asks from humans and turn them into useful output.
  - rybosworld 11mo ago
    The problem is that this time, we're creating a competing intelligence that in theory could replace all work, AND, that competing intelligence is ultimately owned/controlled by a few dozen very rich guys. They aren't going to willingly spread the wealth.
- rybosworld 11mo ago
  Realistically I think the only way to fight back is unions.

sallveburrpi 11mo ago

I really really hope an AI will do this work and solve all the “business problems” so I can go and be a goat herder

noman-land 11mo ago
Go herd goats. You don't need to wait for AI to destroy your livelihood.
- defterGoose 11mo ago
  Yeah, but there's nothing like some sweet, sweet justification.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  Herding goats doesn't solve the interesting technical problem I'm trying to solve. Point is: if that problem is solvable without me, that's the win condition for everyone. Then I go herd goats (and have this nifty tool that helps me spec out an optimal goat fence while I'm at it).
  - lelanthran 11mo ago
    > Point is: if that problem is solvable without me, that's the win condition for everyone. The problem is solvable without you. I don't even need to know what the problem actually is, because the odds of you being one of the handful of the people in the world who are so critical that the world notices their passing is so low, I have a better chance of winning a lottery jackpot than of you being some critical piece of some solution.
    - sallveburrpi 11mo ago
      I completely disagree - I think it’s the other way around. Solving the problem - no matter what problem it is - is extremely dependent on you and every single human being (or animal for that matter) is a critical piece of their environment and circumstances.