With today's mid level programmers, yes. But by that time, many of today's mid level programmers will be able to do stuff high level programmers do today.
Many people underestimate an LLM's most powerful feature when comparing it with something like Stackoverflow: the ability to ask followup questions and immediately get clarification on anything that is unclear.
I wish I had had access to LLM's when I was younger. So much time wasted on repetitive, mundane in-between code...
> the ability to ask followup questions and immediately get clarification on anything that is unclear.
Not only that, but it has the patience of a saint. It never makes you beg for a solution because it thinks there's an XY problem. It never says "RTFM" before posting an irrelevant part of the documentation because it only skimmed your post. It never says "Why would you use X in 2023? Everyone is using framework Y, I would never hire anyone using X."
The difference comes down to this: unlike a human, it doesn't have an ego or an unwarranted feeling of superiority because it learned an obscure technology.
It just gives you an answer. It might tell you why what you're doing is suboptimal, it might hallucinate an answer that looks real but isn't, but at least you don't have to deal with the the worst parts of asking for help online.
Yeah. You also don't have to wait for an answer or interrupt someone to get that answer.
But - in the history of AIs written for chess and go, there was a period for both games where a human playing with an AI could beat either a human playing alone or an AI playing alone.
I suspect we're in that period for programming now, where a human writing code with an AI beats an AI writing code alone, and a human writing code alone.
For chess and go, after a few short years passed, AIs gained nothing by having a human suggesting moves. And I think we'll see the same before long with AI programmers.
Good riddance. I can finally get started on the massive stockpile of potential projects that I never had time for until now.
It's a good time to be in the section of programmers that see writing code as a means to an end and not as the goal itself.
It does surprise me that so many programmers, whose mantra usually is "automate all the things", are so upset now that all the tedious stuff can finally be automated in one big leap.
Just imagine all the stuff we can do when we are not wasting our resources finding obscure solutions to deeply burried environment bugs or any of the other pointless wastes of time!
The invention of cars didn’t provide more jobs for horses. I’m not convinced artificial minds will make more job opportunities for humans.
A lot of that high level work is probably easier to outsource to an AI than a lot of the mundane programming. If not now, soon. How long before you can walk up to a computer and say “hey computer - make me a program that does X” and it programs it up for you? I think that’ll be here before I retire.
Wouldn't you agree the invention of the car created a lot more jobs (mechanics, designers, marketing people etc) than it eliminated?
As far as I can tell, this will only increase the demand for people who actually understand what is going on behind the scenes and who are able to deploy all of these new capabilities in a way that makes sense.
It did. But not for horses. Or horse riders. And I don’t think the average developer understands how AIs work well enough to stay relevant in the new world that’s coming.
Also, how long before AIs can do that too - before AIs also understand what is going on behind the scenes, and can deploy all these new capabilities in a way that makes sense? You’re talking about all the other ways you can provide value using your brain. My worry is that for anything you suggest, artificial brains will be able to do whatever it is you might suggest. And do it cheaper, better or both.
GPT4 is already superhuman in the breadth of its knowledge. No human can know as much as it does. And it can respond at superhuman speeds. I’m worried that none of us are smart enough that we can stay ahead of the wave forever.
GPT4's "knowledge" is broad, but not deep. The current generation of LLM's have no clue when it comes to things like intent or actual emotion. They will always pick the most obvious (and boring) choice. There is a big gap between excellent mimicry and true intelligent thought.
As a developer you don't need to know how they work, you just need to be able to wield their power. Should be easy enough if you can read and understand the code it produces (with or without it's help).
Horses don't play a part in this; programmers are generally not simple beasts that can only do one thing. I'm sure plenty of horse drivers became car drivers and those that remained found something else to do in what remained of the horse business.
Assuming we do get AI that can do more than just fool those who did not study them, do you really think programmers will be the first to go? By the time our jobs are on the line, so many other jobs will have been replaced that UBI is probably the only logical way to go forward.
Like I posted above: for me programming is a means to an end. I have a fridge full of plans, that will last me for at least a decade, even if AI would write most of the code for me.
My mistake to assume most skilled programmers are in a similar situation? I know many and none of them have time for their side projects.
I mean it's a bit of a weird hypothetical situation to discuss but first of all, if I didn't have to work, probably I would be in a financial pickle, unless the prediction includes UBI of some sort. Secondly, most of my side projects that I would like to create are about doing something that this AI would then also be able to do, so it seems like there is nothing left..
So you expect AI will just create all potential interesting side projects by itself when it gets better, no outside intervention required? I have high hopes, but let's be realistic here.
I'm not saying you won't have to work. I'm saying you can skip most of the tedious parts of making something work.
If trying out an idea will only take a fraction of the time and cost it used to, it will become a lot easier to just go for it. That goes for programmers as well as paying clients.
> Just imagine all the stuff we can do when we are not wasting our resources finding obscure solutions to deeply buried environment bugs or any of the other pointless wastes of time!
So you've never given up on an idea because you didn't have the time for it? I just assumed all programmers discard potential projects all the time. Maybe just my bubble though.
>
Not only that, but it has the patience of a saint. It never makes you beg for a solution because it thinks there's an XY problem. It never says "RTFM" before posting an irrelevant part of the documentation because it only skimmed your post. It never says "Why would you use X in 2023? Everyone is using framework Y, I would never hire anyone using X."
> The difference comes down to this: unlike a human, it doesn't have an ego or an unwarranted feeling of superiority because it learned an obscure technology.
The reason for these harsh answers is not ego or feeling of superiority, but rather a real willingness to help the respective person without wasting an insane amount of time for both sides. Just like one likes to write concise code, quite some experienced programmers love to give very concise, but helpful answers. If the answer is in the manual, "RTFM" is a helpful answer. Giving strongly opinionated technology recommendations is also very helpful way to give the beginner a strong hint what might be a good choice (until the beginner has a very good judgement of this on his own).
I know that this concise style of talking does not fit the "sugar-coated" kind of speaking that is (unluckily) common in society. But it is much more helpful (in particular for learning programming).
On the other hand, ChatGPT will helpfully run a bing search, open the relevant manual, summarize the information, and include additional hints or example code without you needing to do anything. It will also provide you the link, in case you wish to verify or read the source material itself.
So while RTFM is a useful answer when you (the expert) are limited by your own time & energy, LLMs present a fundamental paradigm shift that is both more user-friendly and arguably more useful. Asking someone to go from an LLM back to RTFM today would be ~akin to asking someone to go from Google search back to hand-written site listings in 2003.
You could try, but for most people there simply is no going back.
> But by that time, many of today's mid level programmers will be able to do stuff high level programmers do today.
Not without reason some cheeky devils already renamed "Artificial Intelligence" to "Artificial Mediocracy". AIs generate code that is mediocre. This is a clear improvement if the programmer is bad, but leads to deterioration if the programmer is above average.
Thus, AI won't lead to your scenario of mid level programmers being able to do stuff high level programmers do today, but will rather just make bad programmers more mediocre.
The way an LLM can teach and explain is so much better than having to chase down information manually. This is an amazing time to learn how to code.
An LLM can actually spot and fix mediocrity just fine. All you have to do is ask. Drop in some finished code and add "This code does X. What can I do to improve it?"
See what happens. If you did well, you'll even get a compliment.
It's also a massive boon in language mobility. I never really used Python, complex batch files or Unity C# before. Now I just dive right in, safe in the knowledge that I will have an answer to any basic question in seconds.
Many people underestimate an LLM's most powerful feature when comparing it with something like Stackoverflow: the ability to ask followup questions and immediately get clarification on anything that is unclear.
I wish I had had access to LLM's when I was younger. So much time wasted on repetitive, mundane in-between code...