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

91–100 of 237 posts

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#91

Post by NitpickLawyer »

philipkglass wrote: post #17
an0malous wrote: post #12

We’re damned both ways with AI. Either it’s a massive bubble that will pop or it does what it’s intended to do and automates a large portion of the workforce. Edit: removed a comment about Ai investors getting bailed out because it was secondary to my main point

Investors weren't bailed out following the pop of the dot com bubble. I don't think that AI investors will be bailed out afterward if this is another bubble.

Investors in the dotcom bubble were different than the investors in AI, IMO. The current run is led by tech giants, not VCs. How much money are VCs throwing around, compared to FAAMG? They will find a way to get the money back, somehow.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#92

Post by nicolapede »

AstroBen wrote: post #69
mholt wrote: post #23

Don't worry -- soon after that, there will be high demand for human coders as companies scramble to hire to rewrite all the buggy and vuln-ridden AI-hallucinated software. We're on the verge of two revolutions in tech, not one.

I shared your view a year ago. Hell half my posts here on HN are arguing against the annoying hype. Today I make heavy use of AI and my code quality has gone up, not down. It's better tested, better factored, with better error handling covering more edge cases AI code is only buggy if no-one is guiding or reviewing it I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code

What's your workflow/tool set?

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#93

Post by xlbuttplug2 »

billfor wrote: post #8

Those people will go back to doing whatever they would have been doing before the technology revolution, which actually wasn’t so long ago… Like maybe go work at a shipyard. We can only build two ships a year it seems…

Telling people in tech to touch grass is not the best recipe for upvotes it appears.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#94

Post by cosmicgadget »

mholt wrote: post #23

Don't worry -- soon after that, there will be high demand for human coders as companies scramble to hire to rewrite all the buggy and vuln-ridden AI-hallucinated software. We're on the verge of two revolutions in tech, not one.

"Use our agentic coding model version n+1, it will fix all your buggy and vuln-ridden source and you won't have to apologize to your CEO/board!"

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#95

Post by bwfan123 »

In tech, change is the only constant. From embedded software in assembly to mobile/web development in javascript to jit-compiled python. This is not easy on engineers or on businesses as they have to keep reskilling at all times. The silver lining to AI is that it is poor at reskilling itself which is why the data-cutoff is circa 2024 for some models.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#96

Post by ponector »

vishvananda wrote: post #63

I share the concern based on the current productivity expectations but I did stumble across something recently which makes me feel a lot better. There was a change in the tax code that coincides with the beginning of the post-pandemic layoffs[1]. This was changed back last month by the BBB which likely means a bunch of new R&D spend for big tech. I think this is why we are seeing intense M&A activity and if we can ke…

I don't think this tax change had huge impact. Two reasons:

1. Layoffs and slowdown are global, not only in US.

2. Expenses are still deductable, but over longer period. It makes no difference for big corporations.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#97

Post by WaltPurvis »

AstroBen wrote: post #69
mholt wrote: post #23

Don't worry -- soon after that, there will be high demand for human coders as companies scramble to hire to rewrite all the buggy and vuln-ridden AI-hallucinated software. We're on the verge of two revolutions in tech, not one.

I shared your view a year ago. Hell half my posts here on HN are arguing against the annoying hype. Today I make heavy use of AI and my code quality has gone up, not down. It's better tested, better factored, with better error handling covering more edge cases AI code is only buggy if no-one is guiding or reviewing it I'm not sure how long we'll need someone in the middle to actually review the code

>someone in the middle

In the middle between AI and what?

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#98

Post by cholantesh »

thisisnotauser wrote: post #78

Seems like a great opportunity for a non-traditional candidate with some backbone to pull an FDR on this Herbert Hoover.

Sure, provided they're not thoroughly wrung out by the compromised apparatus of their party - or just disappeared by Hoover*.

Assuming that's a reasonable analogue - I'm not super knowledgeable about that era of US history so can't say for sure

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#99

Post by johnecheck »

amilios wrote: post #13

Whats the rebuttal to UBI just causing massive inflation again?

UBI is just wealth flowing from the government to all individuals. The goal is redistribution. As a government, you can explicitly specify who wealth is being taken from by paying for UBI in taxes. If you don't raise taxes to balance the budget, your choice is between kicking the can down the road with debt or printing money. Printing money is really just another form of redistribution drawn from the wealth of everyone holding that currency. Naturally, doing so can lead to a crisis of confidence where the value of the currency collapses as people flee to other assets that are less likely to be devalued.

UBI, like any government spending, needs to be paid for. By taxes or financial disaster. I prefer taxes, personally.

Re: I'm worried it might get bad

#100

Post by FredPret »

andyfilms1 wrote: post #14

I've said this before, but the only thing that will convince me that these companies are actually laying people off due to AI will be when they start replacing their leadership staff with it. Until that happens--IMO it's just an excuse to reduce the overhired workforce without tanking their stock.

Layoffs are generally good for stock prices, at least in the very short term
Post reply on HN