You must log in or # to comment.
AI can now complete real-world coding tasks
That is the point where I stopped reading.
Yes, the author of this article should worry about AI, because AI is indeed quite effective in writing nonsense articles like this one. But AI is nowhere near replacing the real specialists. And it isn’t the question of quantity, it is a principal question of how modern “AIs” work. While those principles won’t change, AIs won’t be able to do any job that involves logic and stable repeated results.It can complete coding tasks. But that’s not the same as replacing a developer. In the same way that cutting wood doesn’t make me a carpenter and soldering a wire doesn’t make me an electrician. I wish the AI crowd understood that.
It can complete coding tasks, but not well AND unsupervised. To get it to do something well I need to tell it what it did wrong over 4 or 5 iterations.
80000 hours are the same cultists from lesswrong/EA that believe singularity any time now and they’re also the core of people trying to build their imagined machine god in openai and anthropic
it’s all very much expected. verbose nonsense is their speciality and they did that way before time when chatbots were a thing
Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.
I feel that this article is based on beliefs that are optimism rather than empiricism or rational extrapolation, and trains of thought driven way into highly simplified territory.
Basically like the Lesswrong, self-proclaimed “longtermists” and Zizians crowds.
Illustrative example: Categorizing nannies under “human touch strongly preferred - perhaps as a luxury”. This assumes automation is not only possible to a degree way beyond what we see signs of, but that the service itself isn’t inherently human.
Huh, I wonder what wrote this stupid article on this not at all fishy fucking website. /s
