Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

news.ycombinator.com

41–50 of 183 posts

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#41

Here's 7 points to console a programmer worried about the imminent threat ai poses to their job: 1. AI is a tool, not a replacement: AI is designed to assist, not replace, human tasks and decisions. 2. AI needs human supervision: AI technologies require expert human supervision for their creation, maintenance, and evolution. 3. AI creates jobs: AI often creates more jobs than it eliminates by automating routine tasks…

These are maybe true for GPT-4, but probably don't hold for GPT-10 or whatever the landscape looks like in another handful of iterations.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#42
You are correct. I took over a lead role at a small startup 6 months ago and I have delayed hiring a UX person because ChatGTP is so helpful.

But at the same time, I think you are underestimating how slow society changes. MP3s of popular music were available on the Internet in 1996. But cd sales didn't fall below the 1996 level until 2005.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#43
I've been using ChatGPT to provide output for very basic stuff, it's 50/50 if it works for the basic stuff. And 100% fails on complex stuff.

It's super useful for finding out how things work like asking it how to use an SDK to do something it works really well for it even provides stuff I searched the docs repeatedly for.

But for complex logic that I want to be too lazy to do, it literally just wastes my time. I tried for an hour to get it to do something and tried to modify the code to get it to work. Ended up just doing my own version completely.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#44
post #23

This strikes me as a little absurd, but perhaps it is common for "developers" to misunderstand what value they actually add. AI won't change the value you add, any more than autocomplete or code generators and scaffolds do. The vast majority of programming is about facilitating, automating and improving business processes. The program artifact only has value as a tool to enable some business processes. A website faci…

"Now, with LLMs, a single system architect/senior developer might be able to do the work of a five person consultancy alone. You might not be able to charge five times as much - but perhaps three times for the same or fewer hours worked?"

This is the point that underscores why the OP is stressing out, and it really is underselling the value GPT adds.

Ignore a consultancy. Consider a team of 5 you might be on. Esp. for greenfields, consider that a team of 1 or 2 could probably be as or more productive.

I'm working on a startup... I was shocked at how much progress GPT afforded me to build out a solution in a day, that likely would have taken over a week of research. It took like 30 iterations to get to a working solution. Unlike a mid-level consultant, I don't ask it to do a thing and it gets back to me the next day... it gets back to me within a minute. Rinse/repeat, incredible progress. Better than pairing with another senior dev, which would still likely take 2-3 days.

Boom, less engineers needed to produce novel products or features, more engineers on the market, depressed wages.

What's absurd is not connecting those dots. It's pretty basic. A business is always looking to increase margins, and with tech, it's almost entirely in human capital. Maybe some will want to move at 2-3x the speed, that's fair. Probably only in good times though.

In short, it doesn't replace all developers... it needs humans guiding it to work, absolutely. But it can certainly replace teammates, and that's the issue if you're working for a company, esp. one that is publicly traded.

Oh yeah, I have 24 years of experience myself professionally, been programming since '82.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#45
Like you say, it's just going to make your job easier and faster. Programmers are likely the last jobs to be replaced by robots.

Stop reading tech for a few weeks and you will get another perspective and you won't feel so neurotic.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#47
Some anecdotes:

A professional translator I’ve known for more than twenty-five years has, within the last few months, seen all of his sources of work dry up. He worked in a field that required specialized knowledge and experience and for which there was steady demand, but there was little human interaction: clients would e-mail him texts, and he would e-mail back the translations. He is angry and upset because he believes—probably correctly—that he can produce more accurate translations than GPT-4. But the price difference is so great between machine and human translation, and the average quality difference now is so small, that his clients have dropped all of their human translators. They have offered him some work checking machine translations, he says, but the pay is much lower. He is now, in his sixties, trying to start a new career.

I myself was a professional translator for twenty years, until 2005, when I took a university job. Most of the translation work I did—for which I earned a good income—can now be done much faster and more cheaply by LLMs. In the mid-1990s, I started also working as a lexicographer—writing and editing entries for bilingual dictionaries. That was difficult work, but I enjoyed it and felt proud to be able to do it. Before I retired from my academic position earlier this year, I had been thinking of returning to dictionary work part-time in my retirement. There’s no future in that now, though, because LLMs have pretty much eliminated the need for human-edited language dictionaries.

Both my daughter and the daughter of a friend of mine are freelance illustrators. While both of them are continuing to get work now, they are following developments in Midjourney etc. with growing worry.

In contrast, a couple of weeks ago I got together with an old friend about my age whom I hadn’t seen in a while. He worked for many years as a glazier, and since he retired on a good union pension he has kept busy repairing regulators for scuba-diving equipment. I tried telling him how excited and worried I was about AI, but he was dismissive. It took me a while to understand why: The work he has done—installing windows and mirrors, fixing precision devices on which people’s lives depend—is not likely to be done by machines any time soon. It’s those of us who have done most of our work in front of computers who need to worry.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#48
I think you are worrying too much, not least because you are destroying your enjoyment of life right now.

If the worst happens you will adapt, it will suck in some ways, but life will still be worth living. Maybe you will enjoy not working at burn out levels all the time.

The worst may not happen. You may find yourself in high demand as someone who can really use AI productively. Who can say?

Certainly it would be prudent to keep a close eye on things and make sure you are one of the people that can keep adding significant value with AI.

In the meantime, I implore you not to ruin what is good now because of fears for a future that may not materialize, or will do so in ways you don't anticipate.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#49
post #38

If you're a good engineer, you're good at getting inside the head of the customer, understanding their needs and converting that into a technical problem which has a solution. None of that can yet be done by ChatGPT and yet it's the most valuable skill you probably have.

I second this. Maybe it's time to trying to shift your job slightly. Maybe you could get into something like consulting for your company or "we brought a tech guy with us" when sales goes to a customer. That's nothing that AI can do.

Re: Ask HN: GPT4 Broke Me

#50

Don't wanna make you feel worse but a friend of mine and nearly 20% of the company got fired a few days ago. CEO's justification? "We don't need you anymore, we will compensate your loss with chat-gpt & co. It's nothing personal, just business". To this day I can't tell whenever CEO's reasons were just outright lies, or if he genuinely thinks he can replace a fifth of his workplace just like that.

What I take from that is either the CEO doesn't take advice from a competent CTO, or he's lying and they used "AI" as a front to reduce the workforce for some other reason.
Post reply on HN