141–150 of 218 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the presidental candidates of the 2030s will be rallying against AI taking all the jobs.
No, the media will have had at least eight years of feeding us, "This was inevitable. It's how the economy naturally works. This is our new reality. Nothing could have been done."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a pretty cynical take, but I would think that having AI management would be highly undesirable for companies, and not because it would be bad at managing. Even in good, reputable companies, there is a certain amount of legally/ethically dubious behavior that is nonetheless desirable. An H1B candidate for a position has been found, but it must be demonstrated that there is no local candidate for that position.…
You don't think AI's can't be trained to lie? Odd, given a major research area right now is to prevent AI from lying. They do it so confidently now nobody can tell.
I think that it would be hard to hide all the inputs and outputs of the AI from scrutiny by the court and then have the company or senior leadership be held accountable for them.
Even if you had a retention policy for the inputs and outputs, the AI would be made available to the plaintiff and the company would be asked to provide inputs that produce the observed actions of the AI. If they can't do that without telling the AI to do illegal things, it would probably result in a negative finding.
----
Having thought a bit more, I think the model that we'd actually see in practice at first is that the AI assists management with certain tasks, and the tasks themselves are not morally charged.
So the manager might ask the AI to produce performance reviews for all employees, basing them on observable performance metrics, and additionally for each employee, come up with a rationale for both promoting them and dismissing them.
The morally dubious choices are then performed by a human, that reviews the AI output and collects or discards it as the situation requires.
Nearly every CEO I’ve talked to in the past three months (only a handful, admittedly) has said something along these lines, if not quite as extreme. They genuinely believed the current state of the art is polished and powerful enough to replace huge swathes of coders, designers, writers, etc. leaving only a middle-management supervisory layer and some lower-level grunts to herd the bots. Or it’s a good PR ruse to sca…
They already have replaced designers and writers. It probably seems reasonable they could replace other jobs very soon, if your knowledge is superficial and you're just reading marketing brochures.
The reality AI's are confidently wrong. Where that doesn't matter they already cut swathes through the workforce. Where it does they haven't made much progress so far.
Yet, I saw a post from someone here saying they were a web programmer who didn't know javascript. They just prompted the AI until it produced something that worked. Them calling themselves a "web programmer" seemed like a stretch to me, and I'm sceptical about them tackling anything but cookie cutter work the AI has already seen a lot of, but that's clearly the direction copilot and it's ilk are headed. Currently, they look like they might soon succeed at using RAG to produce a better grep, so they have a little ways to go yet. I find checking the code written AI's to be more effort than it's work primarily because if I have to understand the code anyway, it's easier if I write it. But maybe that will change. One day. Right now this constant checking of AI's output is a huge time sink.
But there is class of jobs that continually have humans checking their output and giving corrections. That is ... managers. Even CEO's. Maybe the future jobs of board is to select the right AI to be the CEO, and the future of the human workforce is to be prompt engineers for that AI CEO. My guess is AI's will be replacing managers and CEO's before they make a serious dent on STEM jobs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I don't see why anyone with a bit of technical knowledge would use that over PayPal. I mean I'm all for destroying those evil ultra capitalist US corps but unfortunately our European counterparts are just complete rubbish more often than not. If you don't offer wire transfer or PayPal, you lost me as a customer.
Only use case for me with Klarna is getting them give me invoice I pay with SEPA-transfer. 30 days after shipping. Actually a good system for me. Recently bought something and then found it cheaper, negotiated the seller to match price and now the invoice I got got the cheaper price. And I just now had payment go out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the presidental candidates of the 2030s will be rallying against AI taking all the jobs.
No, the media will have had at least eight years of feeding us, "This was inevitable. It's how the economy naturally works. This is our new reality. Nothing could have been done."
First time I tried Klarna, their 'payment' workflow was actually a 'grant full access to all bank accounts' workflow in disguise. I was thinking this amount of misleading must be illegal. Further interactions with them always felt sleazy. Maybe they know the regulators will dismantle the company in the near future and are optimizing for extracting the maximum before their implosion?
Almost like PSD2's open banking part was a huge mistake. I love how my banks, payment providers and random financial apps can now ask for unscoped access, without any way to figure out what I have authorized in the past, what's still pulling my data and how I can revoke any of it. Most OAuth providers have better transparency and control.
Their AI forgot to update their jobs page then. https://klarnagroup.teamtailor.com/jobs
That means a post-tax take home of about 45kSEK and a small one bedroom apartment in the general neighbourhood of their office is on the order of 4-5MSEK.
Nearly every CEO I’ve talked to in the past three months (only a handful, admittedly) has said something along these lines, if not quite as extreme. They genuinely believed the current state of the art is polished and powerful enough to replace huge swathes of coders, designers, writers, etc. leaving only a middle-management supervisory layer and some lower-level grunts to herd the bots. Or it’s a good PR ruse to sca…
Sounds like 20 years ago when everyone was moving IT to India.
I work for a healthcare company and an email from a business customer today found its way to me asking if we use or plan on using "AI".
The person asking this absolutely makes business decisions and absolutely has no idea what they are talking about. It was clear from the email that all they know is "AI good", "No AI bad".
It would be like outsourcing to India if even business that makes absolutely no sense to outsource like restaurants were talking about outsourcing to India for no other reason than "outsourcing good". Of course, not actually doing anything, just the appearance and lip service as to not appear to fall behind the times.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a principal SWE with 25 years of experience and I think software today is comically bad and way too hard to use. So I think we can get engineers to write better software with these tools. The talk of "replacement" is going to be premature until we get something remotely resembling AGI. Unless your problems are so simple that a monkey could solve them, AI of today and foreseeable future is not going to solve them…
Funny enough, now I write better code than I used to thanks to AI because of two reasons: - AI naturally writes AI code that is more organized and clean (proper abstraction, no messy code) - I've recognized that, for AI to write code on an existing codebase, the code has to be clean and organized and make sense, so I tend to do more refactoring to make sure AI can take over them and update them when needed.
Frankly, if you were writing code that is worse structured than what GPT or whatever generates today then you are just a mediocre developer.