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.
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.