Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I'm worried it might get bad

danielmiessler.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 237 posts

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#141

Post by ponector »

fusslo wrote: post #110
ponector wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many examples of buggy and vuln-ridden non-AI-hallucinated software. Never been a rush to fix them.

I've been thinking about this lately. While we engineers understand how to judge and evaluate AI solutions, I am not sure Business Owners (BO) care. BO's are ok with a certain percentage of bugs/rework/inefficiency/instability. And the tradeoff of eliminating (or marginalizing) Engineering may be worth the increased percentage of unfavorable outcomes.

>>While we engineers understand how to judge and evaluate AI solutions

Usually no one really care. Target is to close a ticket, not to make a good software.

"Works fine on my machine" - heard this many times. But user don't have a beefy m4 pro machine with ultra fast fiber. No one care.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#142

Post by bamboozled »

jofla_net wrote: post #140
xunil2ycom wrote: post #89

If humans are replaced en masse by AI agents, companies will save billions until there is nobody left who can pay for their products and/or services because we're all destitute and on the dole. I'm scheduled to retire in about 9 years. I'm not sure I'm going to make it that long.

Very true, If you take the number of tech jobs lost over the last couple years(in article) and multiply out, say, roughly $125K gross salary yearly, cut that in half for taxes (and things i missed) and you still are out tens of billions of dollars that people wont have to spend on things, big things. I don't see how nobody will feel that loss of purchasing... Then again, we all know how detached the market is, someon…

According to other people, the robots will also be consumers.

Us "regular folk" are really just in for the ride now aren't we?

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#143

Post by stego-tech »

thegrim33 wrote: post #138

So, the guy who's a founder of an AI company and makes money if he convinces people to buy into his AI project, is making some alarmist/doomer post about how crazy AI has gotten and how many jobs it's supposedly taking. He presents such thoughts as if they're some gnawing worry he just randomly needs to share. Well, what do you know, the author just happens to sell an AI system that aims to "make humans better, rathe…

Just because there is a conflict of interest doesn’t completely invalidate the argument being made. Marketing slop routinely makes it to the front page here and elsewhere with nobody batting an eye, but someone posting a personal take on their personal blog is now somehow a self-serving plug for…remind me where the product link is in that document again? I couldn’t find it.

Part of recognizing bias and conflicts of interest is also being able to recognize when, despite that, they’re still right.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#144

Post by yegle »

thisisit wrote: post #139

There has been convergence of many events: 1. The tax deduction change where costs couldn't be classified as an expense. 2. The saturation in people joining coding. At one point in time everyone wanted to be part of a bootcamp to earn that sweet coding salary. 3. Rising interest rates means the era of borrowing at low costs is over. etc. AI is last on my list for the reasons that people are being laid off. And its no…

AFAIKT 1. was reverted in the OBBB. And I suspect my recent influx of recruiter outreaching email is related to that. Give it 3 more months and things may trend upward.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#146

Post by xlbuttplug2 »

Nevermark wrote: post #116
xlbuttplug2 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rate at which AI is capable of producing code is intractable for humans to deal with. Right now the bottleneck is human reviewers. If AI ever becomes effective at generating provably correct code, it's joever.

But will humans understand the proofs? Oh…

The proofs are not meant for human consumption. It's for the AI to know to try again rather than spit out hallucinations. Of course there's a leap of faith somewhere here.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#147

Post by quesera »

dysoco wrote: post #124

I don't want to come off as insensitive, and as a developer with a few years of experience and about to graduate, I'm obviously a bit worried about AI as well. However, this reads like an American overpanicking because they're used to living with a certain employment and economic stability that is just not the norm in most of the world, and are coming to terms with instability for the first time. I come from a countr…

I think there's some truth to this. There's lots of room in the middle of the pack.

But that would be a serious, violent, downgrade from the American self-image. We are bred on American Exceptionalism. If this myth is destroyed, we don't have a replacement ideology.

The ROW can decide that Americans are silly people who should get over themselves. But that will not convince Americans to accept the change calmly. And when Americans are not calm, the ROW suffers too. One way or another.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#148

Post by quesera »

amilios wrote: post #105
johnecheck wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shouldn't they lose to a competitor who's happy to keep the lower margin and dominate the market? If not, I'd call that a failure of anti-trust law, not UBI.

What if everyone raises prices simultaneously proportional to the UBI?

In the absence of collusion, if a business can produce a product or service less expensively, giving them the ability to outcompete competitors, they will do so.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#149

Post by OkayPhysicist »

westurner wrote: post #130
enraged_camel wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Why not? Because it's just cope. Look at the current reality. Are companies rushing to fix bad or even buggy code written by human devs? No, not in most cases. In most cases, if a piece of code "works", it is left the hell alone. And that's the thing about AI code: it does work. The quality is irrelevant in the overwhelming majority of cases (especially if it's other AIs that are adding to it, which is the case mo…

> The quality is irrelevant in the overwhelming majority of cases Software quality is especially important in safety critical applications. We should not expect an LLM trained solely on formally-verified code to produce formally-verified code. I don't think that also training on specs and hateful training material will fix that. So then we're back to the original software engineering objectives of writing better SAST…

I've been to birthday parties that employed more people than "safety critical" software development. We're talking about 99.99% of the software development jobs evaporating.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#150

Post by ponector »

westurner wrote: post #130
enraged_camel wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Why not? Because it's just cope. Look at the current reality. Are companies rushing to fix bad or even buggy code written by human devs? No, not in most cases. In most cases, if a piece of code "works", it is left the hell alone. And that's the thing about AI code: it does work. The quality is irrelevant in the overwhelming majority of cases (especially if it's other AIs that are adding to it, which is the case mo…

> The quality is irrelevant in the overwhelming majority of cases Software quality is especially important in safety critical applications. We should not expect an LLM trained solely on formally-verified code to produce formally-verified code. I don't think that also training on specs and hateful training material will fix that. So then we're back to the original software engineering objectives of writing better SAST…

Ok, then 10% of the current IT workforce will be allocated to the critical applications. The rest 90% will be replaced with Claude SuperGPT CODER 6.2.

Like ~100k people in Meta - nothing critical there, right? Many thousands could be replaced with AI-coders there.

Post reply on HN