771–780 of 829 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gpt4 is on another level but still very far from being able to do work on anything larger than a medium sized class
gpt-4-32k is yet on another level. I think a gpt-4-32m would replace any senior engineer working on a complex code base.
> I think a gpt-4-32m would replace any senior engineer working on a complex code base.
...maybe?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're assuming that the AI is even generating anything that will make sense to a human. It seems inevitable we'll reach the point that for SaaS the AI will do everything directly based some internal model it has of what it believes the requirements are (e.g. it will be capable of acting just like a live web server), whereas for desktop and mobile apps, while that paradigm still remains relevant, it will generate the…
> what it believes the requirements are It will have to describe these requirements in a way that a human can understand, and verify. The language will have to be unambiguous and structured. A human will need to be able to read that language, build up a mental model, and understand it is correct, or know the way to make corrections. Who do you think that person will be? Hint: it will be a specialist that knows how to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Manager would be easier to replace with ChatGPT than a software developer
And a founder likely easier again ;)
Looking back we had one CS professor who in 2007 predicted we'd all be jobless in ten years, i.e. 2017. His prediction was based on the trends he was seeing at the time. But it wasn't even AI. Instead he made this prediction because he saw the rise of no-code tools replacing software developers because managers could finally cut out the pesky "translators", i.e. software developers. I said it then and I will say it n…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would sufficiently advanced AI even need a prompter? The AI could play the role of the greatest prompter in the world, and ask the same questions to the end user that the human prompter would.
This is a misconception of how our industry works. Yes there are market resesearches with users but often those come after the problem space has been defined. Most of you see in the tech sector today are "Created Needs" by imagining a solution that the users didn't even know they needed. To ask a question you first need to define a problem that is defined by that/those questions. This is the difficult part and the ma…
Whatever the AI prompter brings to the table will quickly be provided by the AI itself. If a user doesn't really know what they want, there isn't a scenario where the AI prompter will suss it out but the AI itself won't
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I ultimately decided to leave tech when I realized I didn't care much about delivering value and actually just wanted to write beautiful code. The former was a nice bonus for me, but the latter was profoundly captivating. I'd unfortunately tried to make that mismatch work for too long, and as a result I completely destroyed all of my programming interest via severe burnout. If this resonates with whoever reads this:…
Where did you go? I’ve wanted out for years. I recognized the mistake almost immediately after going professional, but I just don’t really see anything else that looks appealing without spending years of my life and a stupid amount of money “retraining” by going back to school.
Lately I've been getting very much into FPV drone videography and 3D printing/design, which are both incredibly gratifying in the way programming used to be for me, but somehow even more so because the process involves mastery of physical matter on top of navigating a high-dimensional abstraction space.
That being said: I don't plan on having kids and enjoy relatively low cost activities, so I don't need to make nearly as much as I did in software to support myself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to "replace programmers", though. For the same reason you can't replace drivers even though they also make mistakes.
It’s not about replacing all programmers. If one programmer with AI assistant can do work the same as 2 programmers then one position is redundant. Even with self driving truck if one truck driver is leading another truck behind controlled by AI, and just for safety you have somewhere C&C center with one person monitoring 4 such ai trucks and in case unexpected event remotely take over control then one truck driver p…
Looking back we had one CS professor who in 2007 predicted we'd all be jobless in ten years, i.e. 2017. His prediction was based on the trends he was seeing at the time. But it wasn't even AI. Instead he made this prediction because he saw the rise of no-code tools replacing software developers because managers could finally cut out the pesky "translators", i.e. software developers. I said it then and I will say it n…
Also, people-people don't want to use no-code tools. They want to hire people to do that for them. If using the tool is really simple, the salaries will go down, but it won't remove the demand for "translators". For the tinkerer, no-code tools are (probably) great, but if successful, even tinkerers will hire managers who will hire translators.
The ergonomics of mainstream modern programming have been stable since at least the 90s. Any fundamental improvements that were going to happen have already happened.
Real Artificial Intelligence? Yeah, that would definitely factor out a lot of the wasted work we call "engineering". Language Learning Models like GPT? Not even close. We should absolutely stop calling those "AI". They are not intelligent. They model intelligent behavior: human writing. We should probably even stop calling them "Language Learning". They don't know or care what language is: they learn whatever pattern…
The hype, more appropriately the cult following claims it will replace jobs and analogous to, second coming of Christ in the aspect of change the world. What it appears to me is there is massive money to be made. It as if, because how strong the hype is, it will drive future VC back startups to be make the next billions. My suggestion to you is, if you are in to make money, you will need to put the common sense part away and join the bandwagon.
I have same sentiment as you regarding LLM, but the biggest issue is that this sentiment will not make money. To make most of what is going on, is to fake the belief that this model will have a great affect on humanity and software solution that makes use of LLM needs funding till an IPO.
I love to code, as much as I loved math in college, but coding paid better and I'm pretty good at it. Those were my choices though b/c I want to do something I love. Sure, I keep my eye on the "Delivered Value" by making sure I engineer solutions to real problems, but I've never wanted to move out of coding and into managing engineers to build stuff. I want to code. It seems to me that the advice given here would be…
It's like telling a musician to become a DJ because the point of performing is to entertain people. It's not wrong, but it's also not applicable to all people who enjoy performing an instrument.
Sure, you can entertain doing hobby music by yourself out of passion and it can have 0 listens and thats great. Keep doing what you love!
The tweet however is in the context of a JOB or CAREER.
If you code and produce 0 value in either saving engineering hours, saving money, producing revenue - whats the point?
So the analogy is rather about having an understanding and skills of a full-stack product person that has the context to build valuable things, rather than typing on keyboard in isolation.