It’s a tool like a linter. It’s a fancy tool, but calling it anything more than a tool is hype
[deleted]
AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
121–130 of 608 posts
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've all been raised in a world where we got to practice the 'art' of programming, and get paid extraordinarily well to do so, because the output of that art was useful for businesses to make more money. If a programmer with an exoskeleton can produce more output that makes more money for the business, they will continue to be paid well. Those who refuse the exoskeleton because they are in it for the pure art will m…
You’re forgetting that the “art” part of it is writing sound, scalable, performant code that can adapt and stand the test of time. That’s certainly more valuable in the long run than banging out some dogshit spaghetti code that “gets the job done” but will lead to all kinds of issues in the future.
> the “art” part of it is writing sound, scalable, performant code that can adapt and stand the test of time.
Sure, and it's possible to use LLM tools to aid in writing such code.
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#123It's the new underpaid employee that you're training to replace you. People need to understand that we have the technology to train models to do anything that you can do on a computer, only thing that's missing is the data. If you can record a human doing anything on a computer, we'll soon have a way to automate it
I think we’re past the “if only we had more training data” myth now. There are pretty obviously far more fundamental issues with LLMs than that.
i've been working in this field for a very long time, i promise you, if you can collect a dataset of a task you can train a model to repeat it.
the models do an amazing job interpolating and i actually think the lack of extrapolation is a feature that will allow us to have amazing tools and not as much risk of uncontrollable "AGI".
look at seedance 2.0, if a transformer can fit that, it can fit anything with enough data
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#124The exoskeleton framing resonates, especially for repetitive data work. Parts where AI consistently delivers: pattern recognition, format normalization, first-draft generation. Parts where human judgment is still irreplaceable: knowing when the data is wrong, deciding what 'correct' even means in context, and knowing when to stop iterating. The exoskeleton doesn't replace instinct. It just removes friction from execu…
And your muscles degrade, a pretty good analogy
Use the exoskeleton at the warehouse to reduce stress and injury; just keep lifting weights at home to not let yourself atrophy.
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#125[dead]
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#126I agree. I call it my Extended Mind in the spirit of Clark (1).
One thing I realized while working a lot in the last weeks with openClaw that this Agents are becoming an extension of my self. They are tools that quickly became a part of my Being. I outsource a lot of work to them, they do stuff for me, help me and support me and therefore make my (work-)life easier and more enjoyable. But its me in the driver seat.
(1) https://www.alice.id.tue.nl/references/clark-chalmers-1998.p...
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.
This is incorrect. It’s basic economics - technology that boosts productivity results in higher salaries and more jobs.
That’s not basic economics. Basic economics says that salaries are determined by the demand for labor vs the supply of labor. With more efficiency, each worker does more labor, so you need fewer people to accomplish the same thing. So unless the demand for their product increases around the same rate as productivity increases, companies will employ fewer people. Since the market for products is not infinite, you only need as much labor as you require to meet the demand for your product.
Companies that are doing better than ever are laying people off by the shipload, not giving people raises for a job well done.
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#128Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Amplified means more work done by fewer people. It doesn’t need to replace a single entire functional human being to do things like kill the demand for labor in dev, which in turn, will kill salaries.
I would disagree. Amplified meens me and you get more s** done. Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second. I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We d…
In fact, there isn’t infinite demand for software. Especially not for all kinds of software.
And if corporate wealth means people get paid more, why are companies that are making more money than ever laying off so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to use them to meet the inexhaustible demand for software?
Re: AI is not a coworker, it's an exoskeleton
#130Humans don’t have an internal notion of “fact” or “truth.” They generate statistically plausible text. Reliability comes from scaffolding: retrieval, tools, validation layers. Without that, fluency can masquerade as authority. The interesting question isn’t whether they’re coworkers or exoskeletons. It’s whether we’re mistaking rhetoric for epistemology.
> LLMs aren’t built around truth as a first-class primitive. neither are humans > They optimize for next-token probability and human approval, not factual verification. while there are outliers, most humans also tend to tell people what they want to hear and to fit in. > factuality is emergent and contingent, not enforced by architecture. like humans; as far as we know, there is no "factuality" gene, and we lie to ou…
If an employee repeatedly makes factually incorrect statements, we will (or could) hold them accountable. That seems to be one difference.