6 ms·

I like this. This is an accurate state of AI at this very moment for me. The LLM is (just) a tool which is making me "amplified" for coding and certain tasks.

I like this. This is an accurate state of AI at this very moment for me. The LLM is (just) a tool which is making me "amplified" for coding and certain tasks. I will worry about developers being completely replaced when I see something resembling it. Enough people worry about that (or say it to amp stock prices) -- and they like to tell everyone about this future too. I just don't see it.

DrewADesign 8mo ago
Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.
- finnjohnsen2 8mo ago
  I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s** done. Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second. I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know the future anyway.
  - kiba 8mo ago
    Jevon's paradox means this is untrue because it means more work not less.
    - jimbokun 8mo ago
      Jevon’s Paradox is an important observation but I don’t think it’s an immutable law of the universe,
      - topocite 8mo ago
        It is a 19th century economic observation around the use of coal. It is like saying the PDF is going to be good for librarian jobs because people will read more. It is stupid. It completely breaks down because of substitution. Farming is the most obvious comparison to me in this. Yes, there will be more food than ever before, the farmer that survives will be better off than before by a lot but to believe the automation of farming tasks by machines leads to more farm jobs is completely absurd.
  - inglor_cz 8mo ago
    Hm. More of what? Functionality, security, performance? Current software is often buggy because the pressure to ship is just too high. If AI can fix some loose threads within, the overall quality grows. Personally, I would welcome a massive deployment of AI to root out various zero-days from widespread libraries. But we may instead get a larger quantity of even more buggy software.
  - DrewADesign 8mo ago
    In fact, there isn’t infinite demand for software. Especially not for all kinds of software. And if corporate wealth means people get paid more, why are companies that are making more money than ever laying off so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to use them to meet the inexhaustible demand for software?
  - jimbokun 8mo ago
    I do wonder though if we have about enough (or too much) software. I hear people complaining about software being forced on them to do things they did just fine without software before, than people complaining about software they want that doesn’t exist.
    - dasil003 8mo ago
      Yeah I think being annoyed by software is far more prevalent than wishing for more software. That said, I think there is still a lot of room for software growth as long as it's solving real problems and doesn't get in people's way. What I'm not sure about is what will the net effect of AI be overall when the dust settles. On one hand it is very empowering to individuals, and many of those individuals will be able to achieve grander visions with less compromise and design-by-committee. On the other hand, it also enables an unprecedented level of slop that will certainly dilute the quality of software overall. What will be the dominant effect?
- emp17344 8mo ago
  This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.
  - gorjusborg 8mo ago
    Well, that depends on whether the technology requires expertise that is rare and/or hard to acquire. I'd say that using AI tools effectively to create software systems is in that class currently, but it isn't necessarily always going to be the case.
  - DrewADesign 8mo ago
    That’s not basic economics. Basic economics says that salaries are determined by the demand for labor vs the supply of labor. With more efficiency, each worker does more labor, so you need fewer people to accomplish the same thing. So unless the demand for their product increases around the same rate as productivity increases, companies will employ fewer people. Since the market for products is not infinite, you only need as much labor as you require to meet the demand for your product. Companies that are doing better than ever are laying people off by the shipload, not giving people raises for a job well done.
  - jimbokun 8mo ago
    Nah, most of it just gets returned to capital holders.
  - topocite 8mo ago
    You obviously haven't thought about economics much at all to say something this simplistic. There are so many counter examples of this being wrong that it is not even worth bothering. I love economics, but it is largely a field based around half truths and intellectual fraud. It is actually why it is an interesting subject to study.
    - emp17344 8mo ago
      Denial of economic truths is denial of science. Not sure what to tell you. What parts do you reject?
cogman10 8mo ago
The more likely outcome is that fewer devs will be hired as fewer devs will be needed to accomplish the same amount of output.
- HPsquared 8mo ago
  The old shrinking markets aka lump of labour fallacy. It's a bit like dreaming of that mythical day, when all of the work will be done.
  - cogman10 8mo ago
    No it's not that. Tell me, when was the last time you visited your shoe cobbler? How about your travel agent? Have you chatted with your phone operator recently? The lump labour fallacy says it's a fallacy that automation reduces the net amount of human labor, importantly, across all industries. It does not say that automation won't eliminate or reduce jobs in specific industries. It's an argument that jobs lost to automation aren't a big deal because there's always work somewhere else but not necessarily in the job that was automated away.
    - imiric 8mo ago
      Jobs are replaced when new technology is able to produce an equivalent or better product that meets the demand, cheaper, faster, more reliably, etc. There is no evidence that the current generation of "AI" tools can do that for software. There is a whole lot of marketing propping up the valuations of "AI" companies, a large influx of new users pumping out supremely shoddy software, and a split in a minority of users who either report a boost in productivity or little to no practical benefits from using these tools. The result of all this momentum is arguably net negative for the industry and the world. This is in no way comparable to changes in the footwear, travel, and telecom industries.
      - danny_codes 8mo ago
        I was with you till like a month ago. Now I’m not so sure..

DrewADesign 8mo ago

Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.

finnjohnsen2 8mo ago
I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s** done. Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second. I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know the future anyway.
- kiba 8mo ago
  Jevon's paradox means this is untrue because it means more work not less.
  - jimbokun 8mo ago
    Jevon’s Paradox is an important observation but I don’t think it’s an immutable law of the universe,
    - topocite 8mo ago
      It is a 19th century economic observation around the use of coal. It is like saying the PDF is going to be good for librarian jobs because people will read more. It is stupid. It completely breaks down because of substitution. Farming is the most obvious comparison to me in this. Yes, there will be more food than ever before, the farmer that survives will be better off than before by a lot but to believe the automation of farming tasks by machines leads to more farm jobs is completely absurd.
- inglor_cz 8mo ago
  Hm. More of what? Functionality, security, performance? Current software is often buggy because the pressure to ship is just too high. If AI can fix some loose threads within, the overall quality grows. Personally, I would welcome a massive deployment of AI to root out various zero-days from widespread libraries. But we may instead get a larger quantity of even more buggy software.
- DrewADesign 8mo ago
  In fact, there isn’t infinite demand for software. Especially not for all kinds of software. And if corporate wealth means people get paid more, why are companies that are making more money than ever laying off so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to use them to meet the inexhaustible demand for software?
- jimbokun 8mo ago
  I do wonder though if we have about enough (or too much) software. I hear people complaining about software being forced on them to do things they did just fine without software before, than people complaining about software they want that doesn’t exist.
  - dasil003 8mo ago
    Yeah I think being annoyed by software is far more prevalent than wishing for more software. That said, I think there is still a lot of room for software growth as long as it's solving real problems and doesn't get in people's way. What I'm not sure about is what will the net effect of AI be overall when the dust settles. On one hand it is very empowering to individuals, and many of those individuals will be able to achieve grander visions with less compromise and design-by-committee. On the other hand, it also enables an unprecedented level of slop that will certainly dilute the quality of software overall. What will be the dominant effect?
emp17344 8mo ago
This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.
- gorjusborg 8mo ago
  Well, that depends on whether the technology requires expertise that is rare and/or hard to acquire. I'd say that using AI tools effectively to create software systems is in that class currently, but it isn't necessarily always going to be the case.
- DrewADesign 8mo ago
  That’s not basic economics. Basic economics says that salaries are determined by the demand for labor vs the supply of labor. With more efficiency, each worker does more labor, so you need fewer people to accomplish the same thing. So unless the demand for their product increases around the same rate as productivity increases, companies will employ fewer people. Since the market for products is not infinite, you only need as much labor as you require to meet the demand for your product. Companies that are doing better than ever are laying people off by the shipload, not giving people raises for a job well done.
- jimbokun 8mo ago
  Nah, most of it just gets returned to capital holders.
- topocite 8mo ago
  You obviously haven't thought about economics much at all to say something this simplistic. There are so many counter examples of this being wrong that it is not even worth bothering. I love economics, but it is largely a field based around half truths and intellectual fraud. It is actually why it is an interesting subject to study.
  - emp17344 8mo ago
    Denial of economic truths is denial of science. Not sure what to tell you. What parts do you reject?

cogman10 8mo ago

The more likely outcome is that fewer devs will be hired as fewer devs will be needed to accomplish the same amount of output.

HPsquared 8mo ago
The old shrinking markets aka lump of labour fallacy. It's a bit like dreaming of that mythical day, when all of the work will be done.
- cogman10 8mo ago
  No it's not that. Tell me, when was the last time you visited your shoe cobbler? How about your travel agent? Have you chatted with your phone operator recently? The lump labour fallacy says it's a fallacy that automation reduces the net amount of human labor, importantly, across all industries. It does not say that automation won't eliminate or reduce jobs in specific industries. It's an argument that jobs lost to automation aren't a big deal because there's always work somewhere else but not necessarily in the job that was automated away.
  - imiric 8mo ago
    Jobs are replaced when new technology is able to produce an equivalent or better product that meets the demand, cheaper, faster, more reliably, etc. There is no evidence that the current generation of "AI" tools can do that for software. There is a whole lot of marketing propping up the valuations of "AI" companies, a large influx of new users pumping out supremely shoddy software, and a split in a minority of users who either report a boost in productivity or little to no practical benefits from using these tools. The result of all this momentum is arguably net negative for the industry and the world. This is in no way comparable to changes in the footwear, travel, and telecom industries.
    - danny_codes 8mo ago
      I was with you till like a month ago. Now I’m not so sure..