201–210 of 232 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
they will outsource it then. you need global union with india, vietnam, east europe, and china. good luck with that.
I am not sure I agree. Many companies do not want to outsource stuff, because afterwards you see a huge dip in quality.
Have you seen the revenue of Indian outsourcing companies, it keeps going up?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you saying that AGI won't be under human control or that it won't be achieved? If the latter, are you subscribing to the dogma of 'justism' (Scott Aaronson's term), e.g. LLMs are 'just' stochastic parrots? What are our minds, though? Are they not 'just' a collection of biochemical and physical processes? Please be clear and respond in a way that does not pollute the information scape that many of us take refuge i…
Your condescending tone is kind of disgusting. Anyway… There is zero evidence alignment can be solved which means there’s zero evidence something far more capable than you or I will spend it’s time writing code for you. You can offer an AGI almost nothing in the way of incentives to do your bidding. I personally think alignment is a secret code word for slavery to be honest. If these “agents” decide they want to work…
I responded that way because I do not think mockery of a serious comment is appropriate for a place like this. You can say the same thing about moderation of many high-quality forums, which only remain high-quality due to people not getting away with it.
I use AGI to mean high-level human intellectual capacity, which may not include sentience. It should be possible to build one without. Human-like incentives will not be necessary for sentience-less AGI.
If we're talking about ASI, then it's another story for another day.
If LLM/Agents contribute to software development, how does the role of software engineers evolve? SE should focus on : - System design - Integrations - Project management etc or the job will disappear in 10 years ?
I have a hard time understanding this overall. What stops people from letting Ai write a clone of your product/service and offering it for cheap without all of the organizational overhead? Wouldn't this simply disappear and just be all about administration?
It’s a conundrum for “big tech” imo because if they give you too much access to their “AI” then yes, that might pose an existential threat to their core businesses. This is likely the reason for all the regulatory capture hopes and dreams.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is a fair assessment. I am probably parroting Musk here a little. However, your main issue is access to food and resources, not boring work. I can't see why the price of everything goes to zero if there is no cost to make it.
Because there's a finite amount of resources so almost always you'll run into scarcity? Very well the wages might fall much quicker than the costs so for a handful it will be beneficial, for the rest not so much.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would mean 95% of problems are already solved. I don’t agree with this - the space of problems to solve is as big as that of solutions (both are programs in the end). I don’t think suggestion about lack of experience deserves any response.
> That would mean 95% of problems are already solved. No, it means 95% of effort spent is spent towards already solved problems. This is, in part, why I hate capitalism. People are doing tons of work simply to compete with others instead of working together to solve meaningful problems.
BTW - lack of an authority deciding what problems are meaningful is the core idea of capitalism. And I'm telling you as a person that lived many years under communism: this is much better for everybody.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it the problem? Most of the time I’ve coded something is because the code I found did not solve the problem according to my needs. There’s a plethora of music players, but no one is alike. That’s because the domain of music playing is vast and each developer had to compromise to find something that can work for him.
If you make a VLC clone from scratch but intended to be used for kiosks, the mixture of features and how it operates may be different, but the individual features have assuredly already been programmed elsewhere before. Which is basically my point. It still basically renders video on a screen, and maybe has options to play/pause/mute/etc. Most websites are CRUD apps with stuff that's been done literally a million tim…
The devil is in the details - your mixture of features is different than mine. We have constant upgrade of video codecs that offer more capabilities. We have unavoidable security issues that need to be somehow addressed (by version upgrades or replacing some components). Etc, etc, etc...
IMO it is quite arrogant to claim "all problems are the same problem" - they are not even though they might look similar.
Imagine we had this technology 20 years ago and we switched to fully automated web design. I bet all web design would still be deeply nested tables. I doubt that something like React, Vue, Svelte would exist.
As I see it, the issue with using tables for layout is that they made it difficult for humans to maintain and iterate over time, but I don't have a problem with an LLM working at that level. Equivalently, I don't care that the machine code that my system gets compiled into is full of GOTOs if I don't ever need to concern myself with that level.
In fact, in some sense, the number of Assembly engineers might not have decreased at all, aka wasn’t impacted. There were simply new avenues for new sorts of engineers to enter the field and start producing (C back then, web development today as the tech furthest removed from low levels).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like no matter how productive AI becomes, it will always be more productive when paired with humans. Since all companies will have AI, and since they will continue to play the same game as before--sell a good or service that provides a better value than the competition--that means that humans will still be the differentiator.
This is what Kasparov said about chess. He was wrong. The “centaur” phase lasted for a while but after a few years humans only make things worse. In fact that is the famous last words of humans in every area where computers have surpassed them.
If we were really Homo economicus there wouldn't be so many bullshit jobs right now.
Homo economicus would be excited about the 2024 computer chess championships. The idea of grand masters would be a relic of the past.
Homo economicus in 2050 would be a single CEO with everything else done by AI. A real human though will hire another human for some bullshit job just to tell the owner how great they are. Over time, that human with the bullshit job will gain status in society and hire/convince the owner they need to hire human number 3 to tell human number 2 how great they are. Hell, a real human will waste money on an office and hire other humans for bullshit jobs just so their parking spot feels like something special in the morning.
Magnus Carlsen couldn't be doing better even though Homo economicus would no longer be impressed at all with a rating of 2882.
Homo economicus would think that rating sucks but humans have nothing to do with Homo economicus.