181–189 of 189 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>so the industry better look for people who enjoy programming Why? Both AI and outsourcing provide a much cheaper way to get programming done. Why would you pay someone 100k because he likes doing what an AI or an Indian dev Team can do for much cheaper?
The Indian dev enjoys programming, too
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Writing software will never again be a skill worth 100k a year. I am sure Software developers are here to stay, but nobody who just writes software is worth anywhere close to 100k a year. Either AI or outsourcing is making sure of that.
Right now there are thousands of solo devs making >100k a year without a boss to annoy them. That's only going to grow with AI.
And the amount of code these people write is only going to decrease.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now there are thousands of solo devs making >100k a year without a boss to annoy them. That's only going to grow with AI.
>That's only going to grow with AI. And the amount of code these people write is only going to decrease.
I'm a little older now, over 60. I'm writing a spaceflight simulator for fun and (possible) profit. From game assets to coding, it seems like AI could help. But every time I try it out, I just end up feeling drained by the process of guiding it to good outcomes. It's like I have an assistant to work for me, who gets to have all the fun, but needs constant hand holding and guidance. It isn't fun at all, and for me, co…
Validating LLM-generated text seems to be a hard problem, because it requires a human-quality reader.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So? What is your point?
"Writing software will never again be a skill worth 100k a year." First sentence of my OP. I thought it was obvious.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I just categorically disagree that a codebase is impossible to understand without “sufficient” additional context. And I think you ascribe too much order to software written by humans that can exist in quite varied groups wrt ability, experience, style, and care.
It was easy to understand what the code was instructing the computer to do. It was harder to understand what that meant , why it was happening, and how to change it. A program to calculate payroll might be easy to understand, but unless you understand enough about finance and tax law, you can't successfully modify it. Same with an audio processing pipeline: you know it's doing something with Fourier transforms, becau…
> [The] problem is that the sole medium of transport here for the intent of what the user wanted the language model to write and what we see is the output of the language model. And that in itself is a bit of a problem: had we hand-written code, we could look at what it tries to do; it would have suggestive names, maybe even comments, stemming from the user's original intent, and not from an LLM's interpretation of what the user told it was their intent. Basically, LLMs are intent-obfuscating machines for engineering problems :)