5 ms·
> There will still be fine programmers developing software by hand after AI is good enough for most. This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that
by brailsafe 10mo ago
> There will still be fine programmers developing software by hand after AI is good enough for most.
This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that there are still blacksmiths; people who ride horses; people who use typewriters; even people who use fountain pens, but they don't really exist in any practical or economical sense outside of 10 years ago Portland, OR.
No technological advancement that I'm aware of completely eliminates one's ability to pursue a discipline as a hobbyist or as a niche for rich people. It's rarely impossible, but I don't think that's ever anyone's point. Sometimes they even make a comeback, like vinyl records.
The scope of the topic seems to be what the usual one is, which is the chain of incentives that enable the pursuit of something as a persuasive exchange of value, particularly that of a market that needs a certain amount of volume and doesn't have shady protectionism working for it like standard textbooks.
With writing, like with other liberal arts, it's far from a new target of parental scrutiny, and it's my impression that those disciplines have long been the pursuit of people who can largely get away with not really needing a viable source of income, particularly during the apprentice and journeyman stages.
Programming has been largely been exempt from that, but if I were in the midst of a traditional comp sci program, facing the existential dreads that are U.S and Canadian economies (at least), along with the effective collapse of a path to financial stability, I'd be stupid not to be considering a major pivot; to what, I don't know.
- uxcolumbo 10mo agoThings that won't be automated anytime soon, like plumbers or electricians. Or double down on applied ML?
- satvikpendem 10mo agoNo job is special, even though many programmers like to think of themselves as so. Everyone must learn to adapt to a changing world, just as they did a hundred years ago at the turn of the century.
- _DeadFred_ 10mo agoThis is always said as if the buggy whip maker successfully transitioned to some new job. Please show me 10 actual examples of individuals in 1880 that successfully adapted to new jobs after the industrial revolution destroyed their old one, and what their life looked like before and after. 'Sure the 1880 start of the industrial revolution sucked, all the way through the end of WW2, but then we figured out jobs and middle class for a short time, so it doesn't matter you personally are being put at the 1880 starting point, because the 1950s had jobs'. Huh?
- satvikpendem 10mo agoDo you think those people just starved to death? They had to find other jobs and they did. Now I'm sure I could find you 10 such examples if I trawl through historical records for a few hours but I'm not going to waste my time like that on New Year's Eve. Why are you constructing a strawman in your second paragraph? No one said or even implied that, you just made up your own quote you're attacking for something reason?
- _DeadFred_ 10mo agoPeople imply that the jobs shakeup will 'work itself out', but tend to imply that working out looks like post WW2, when in reality we are at 1880 level change that took decades to 'work itself out' and working itself out included in 2 world wars during that time.
- satvikpendem 10mo agoNo one is waiting 70 years to work itself out, you're operating on a false premise that I don't even know where it comes from, people were not starving jobless for 70 years straight. Like I said, people found other jobs, within a decade span at most of their occupation being automated.
- jonnybgood 10mo ago> This fallacy seems to be brought up very frequently, that there are still blacksmiths; people who ride horses; people who use typewriters; even people who use fountain pens, but they don't really exist in any practical or economical sense outside of 10 years ago Portland, OR. Did you respond with a fallacy of your own? I can only assume you’re not in or don’t have familiarity with those worlds and that has lead you to conclude they don’t exist in any practical or economical sense. It’s not difficult to look up those industries and their economic impact. Particularly horses and fountain pens. Or are you going by your own idea of practical or economical?
- deleted 10mo ago[deleted]
- phil21 10mo agoNo, horses and fountain pens do not exist in any real sense today vs. the economic impact they once had. They are niche hobbies that could disappear tomorrow and the economy wouldn't even notice. They used to be bedrocks where the world would stop turning without them overnight if they disappeared. The folks put out of work would be a rounding error on yearly layoffs if every horse and pen was zapped out of existence tonight. They are incredibly niche side industries largely for the pleasure of wealthy folks. Horses still have a tiny niche industrial use.
- brailsafe 10mo agoHorses might have been an overly broad claim, but I basically meant that the others aren't really viable pursuits to bet a chunk of your working life on, in terms of how likely it is that their markets exist in a practical economic sense. The equivalent in the programming world now might be rare old bank mainframes. COBOL isn't a thing you go to school to learn and expect it to be around forever, but that's just one. Times do change, but if the core skill stops being bought, except in niche circumstances, then there's no reason to pursue it, just the novelty.
- klik99 10mo agoThere may not be many people whose professional job is using a typewriter, but there are still tons of writers.