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

Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

defragzone.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–886 of 886 posts

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#881

Post by SJC_Hacker »

jdbernard wrote: post #868
SJC_Hacker wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True AGI would make every worker unemployable. The only reason why true androids aren't possible yet is software. The mechanics have been pretty much a solved problem.

Lol what. We can't even define "true intelligence" and you're telling me the "mechanics" are already solved? What do you even mean by that statement?

They can build androids with the strength/dexterity/agility equal to / surpassing that of any human. Sight, vision and vestibular (sense of balance) were of course solved last century. Not sure about tactile feedback and taste/smell.

The control systems/software is different problem, and then there is power (current gen lasts a few hours at most, depending on application this may be a problem or it may not be)

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#882

Post by jdbernard »

SJC_Hacker wrote: post #881
jdbernard wrote: post #868

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol what. We can't even define "true intelligence" and you're telling me the "mechanics" are already solved? What do you even mean by that statement?

They can build androids with the strength/dexterity/agility equal to / surpassing that of any human. Sight, vision and vestibular (sense of balance) were of course solved last century. Not sure about tactile feedback and taste/smell. The control systems/software is different problem, and then there is power (current gen lasts a few hours at most, depending on application this may be a problem or it may not be)

I misread your original comment. I read "true AGI" where you said "true androids."

I agree. Other than the control system, everything else is already there, or at least understood. But I think we are much farther away from "true intelligence" than AI boosters claim. We don't even know the path to it. We have guesses, but no hard evidence that those guesses will actually pan out.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#884

Post by shinycode »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #519
NicuCalcea wrote: post #511

Workers in various industries have pled for their jobs and programmers said "no, my code can replace you". Now that automation is coming for them, it's suddenly "the dumbest mistake". Tech has "disrupted" many industries, leaving some better, but many worse. Now that "disruption" is pointed inwards. Programmers will have to adapt to the new market conditions like everyone else. There will either be fewer jobs to go a…

The real funny thing is that now we‘re replacers and the replaced at the same time. We plead to ourselves. The wings have begun melting and nothing will stop it. Finally, Icarus has flown too close to the sun.

I’d like to see stakeholder only talking to an LLM to built a product with millions of lines of code and push all that into production where other companies depend on it to run themselves. Good luck when there’s a critical bug and the LLM keep saying « looks good to me ».

If devs are completely replaced then PO, PM, everyone else can be replaced as well. No need to build companies around software

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#885

Post by rsanek »

lolinder wrote: post #381
hombre_fatal wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we who are already in tech have this gleeful fantasy that new tools impair newcomers in a way that will somehow serve us, the incumbents, in some way. But in reality pretty much anyone who enters software starts off cutting corners just to build things instead of working their way up from nand gates. And then they backfill their knowledge over time. My first serious foray into software wasn't even Ruby. It wa…

> Why wouldn't this be the case for people using LLM like it was for everyone else? I feel like it's a bit different this time because LLMs aren't just an abstraction. To make an analogy: Ruby on Rails serves a similar role as highways—it's a quick path to get where you're going, but once you learn the major highways in a metro area you can very easily break out and explore and learn the surface streets. LLMs are a G…

One small change to using a GPS radically impacts how much you know about the area -- do you use the default, always-forward view, or do you use the slightly-less-usable always-north setting? If you use the latter, you will find that you learn far more about the city layout while still benefitting from the GPS functionality itself.

I think LLMs are similar. Sure, you can vibe code and blindly accept what the LLM gives you. Or, you can engage with it as if pair programming.

Re: Firing programmers for AI is a mistake

#886

Post by chefandy »

dham wrote: post #144

There's such a huge disconnect between people reading headlines and developers who are actually trying to use AI day to day in good faith. We know what it is good at and what it's not. It's incredibly far away from doing any significant change in a mature codebase. In fact I've become so bearish on the technology trying to use it for this, I'm thinking there's going to have to be some other breakthrough or something…

Counterpoint: https://medium.com/@sweaty.phd/yet-another-ai-will-take-your...
Post reply on HN