51–60 of 99 posts
Gathering requirement & making sure you are building the right thing will always be a tough & important task for SW Engineers, no matter how good language models get.
Even if an AI was developed to the point that it could do a full requirements analysis, executive/managers/high status people will still want someone else to do it. You're not going to get a CEO to sit down with such a system and determine requirements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a killjoy. Who cares? Let me toy around.
gmail's web interface turned to shit because of this... not sure why they push those changes to production though...
BuT tHe DaTa SaYs We NeEd a Ux ChAnGe
Math, physics, chemistry won't change. Who knows if software will be nearly recognizable in 10-20 years from now, but the reality of the world will not.
Math, sure - doesn't the understanding of physics also go through changes? Do we really understand the reality of the world; or how do we know our current understanding of it won't change?
Theoretical CS fundamentals are not going to change. Practically, that means among other things: - Unless somebody finds a polynomial algorithm for an NP-complete problem (which is a taller order than just proving P=NP), several interesting problems will continue to be infeasible to solve exactly in the general case with large data. - If, in addition, quantum computers don't prove to be viable, commonly used cryptosy…
AES is considered quantum resistant.
Math, physics, chemistry won't change. Who knows if software will be nearly recognizable in 10-20 years from now, but the reality of the world will not.
> Math, physics, chemistry won't change. The whole beauty of science is that it doesn't ever claim to have static, absolute answers - it's constantly growing and changing as we learn more about everything. Likewise, the humanities are always growing and changing and being reinterpreted, reflecting what and how we can understand now. > Who knows if software will be nearly recognizable in 10-20 years from now Software…
That's wrong for maths and, by extension, theoretical CS. I mean, sure, some of the answers come with caveats ("assuming P!= NP", etc.), and in theory, all of mathematics could be proven inconsistent (but that to me is completely unreasonable to believe), but for all intents and purposes, these answers are static and absolute.
I don't see a world 50 years from now where writing SQL isn't needed.
I find it a little surprising that while we have hundreds of languages for writing software, and several options with a modicum of popularity in almost any describable paradigm, one database schema and query language remains so dominant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder about the latter. It's known that high quality, one-on-one teaching can greatly improve learning speed. Could near future generation AI learn to be a teacher on par with the best human ones?
no but current LLM can already almost give 1:1 support and differentiated assistance based on how the student comes. I'm in edtech building this. it's like having 1 teacher with 25 assistants.