7 ms·

It's not just non technical people. Even programmers around me are worried. Some think AI will replace programmers soon, some think partially, mostly everybody

It's not just non technical people. Even programmers around me are worried. Some think AI will replace programmers soon, some think partially, mostly everybody thinks that a lot of stuff will change soon. I am personally not worried. Any outcome is great. Either I keep a well paid job and it becomes even more well paid, or AI is so good that there aren't any jobs at all anymore, which sounds good too. Let's define soon - I understand it as "within a decade or so" in this context.

Pinkthinker 2y ago
I’m pretty sure that LLMs will never replace programmers. It’s way too hard to stitch together code snippets. Also, when you think about all the misunderstandings that arise from pseudo code, free form text input to an LLM has to be even more ambiguous. I don’t care whether someone calls themselves a “prompt engineer”. But AI will replace programmers just like it superseded chess players. We are putting the finishing touches to an AI that write code. And not in an LLM kind of way. It allows you to specify exactly what you want without needing to specify the logic. Check out Ac28R.com We are excited about it, but it makes my heart ache when I think about the impact. The world is speeding up. We are the cause but we will struggle to avoid getting swept up in it.
vunderba 2y ago
This is my belief as well. Either one of three things happen (in order of most likely to least likely) 1. AI replaces software engineers in the same way that "autopilot" in planes replaced pilots. Augmentation of boilerplate (particularly devop CI/CD, deployment tedium) sounds pretty appealing to me. 2. AI genuinely replaces software engineers. If that's true, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't soon disrupt other engineering domains as well. At that point we're basically closing in on AGI, which doomsday predictions aside, I would like to hope leads radical progression of technology and evolution of mankind. 3. AI is completely banned/suppressed Dune style. This only strengthens my position in the market.
- wruza 2y ago
  AI genuinely replaces software engineers. If that's true, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't soon disrupt other engineering domains as well. If that’s true, then… How? Most engineering is physical and blueprint work which cannot be converted into embeddings and filled in the middle. Or if you’re assuming that something LLM/VLM/SD-like will appear for this domain, that’s a pretty wild guess. I even doubt that transformers are more suitable for that than now-classic boring ML. If you hope that the language will somehow “emerge itself” into building, schematics, industrial, etc behaviors, that’s also quite a guess. Make sure you’re not coping, because transformers generalize over (fuzzy) painting and text, the only data we have in abundance. These are common attributes of programmers, writers and graphics artists and barely anyone else, and the latter two are already screwed. We don’t have readily accessible logs for abstract thoughts, professional conversations at work or inner monologues. Maybe in ten years China will realize it and start to collect it at scale.
  - vineyardlabs 2y ago
    This seems like a big assumption to me personally. To be clear, I happen to be of the opinion that AI/ML/LLMs/whatever cannot truly replace software engineers without the true advent of AGI. But to play devil's advocate. I'm an embedded SWE and work with circuit designers/have dabbled in some PCB design myself. Taking circuit design as an example: From an abstract logic standpoint, PCB design is not that different from software development. It essentially boils down to taking some input and feeding it through a cascade of various discrete transformations until you have some desired output. The fact that PCB designs are captured through schematics is irrelevant, as a schematic is just a visual representation of a netlist. There are even DSLs that allow for the design of circuits through code alone. The mechanisms that make LLMs work show some level of adaptability to domains outside of traditional language. It is totally conceivable today to finetune an LLM on netlists (or even on images of schematics with the right encoder model) and have it be able to generate circuit designs. The training data exists, though it's not as plentiful as say code or english texts. I'm not an ML expert but I believe it's totally possible to have something where, for example, the text "555 timer-based LED-blinking circuit", could map in embedding space to a netlist that describes said circuit. There are in fact companies working on this exact thing today (Flux.ai) I don't see why this wouldn't work for other engineering disciplines aswell. There's lots of public scad code for various 3d models. It's totally conceivable to build a model trained on scad or even raw 3d object file geometry and text embeddings to generate mechanical designs. Lot's of research is going into generative meshes which could be seen as an early form of this. I think my point being that the hard part of engineering, discipline aside, is being able to take a fuzzy set of desires from a customer and a fuzzy set of constraints and being able to use the hard math and science to create and iteratively refine a product/system/whatever to make all stakeholders happy. LLMs can't really emulate this process today.
trod123 2y ago
> I am personally not worried. Any outcome is great. Either I keep a well paid job and it becomes even more well paid, or AI is so good there aren't any jobs at all anymore, which sounds good too. You certainly have a rose-tinted magical way of viewing the world. You haven't thought through the consequences of this at all. I'll break this down a bit further for you hopefully in a way you can understand. You work to provide value in exchange for a store of value; currency. You do this to spend that currency on food and other basic necessities which are dependencies for your survival, first, and then discretionary spending second. Producers hire you so you can distribute labor and produce, so they can make a profit. They stop producing when that's no longer possible. Its an agreement between both parties which enable distribution of labor and exchange of goods flowing through an economy. Without either part, no exchange occurs, there may be a brief stalling period but when its stalled everyone's goose is cooked. It is a very fine balance, or supercritical state where deviations can cause exit conditions. Sound similar to an n-body problem; that's because it is, along with mathematical chaos (small changes in inputs create dramatic unpredictable changes in outputs). When there are no jobs, you can't earn currency, and you suddenly can't feed yourself. You have nothing to do, no way to differentiate yourself either. Worse, No one will listen to you because you no longer provide value, you are now a nameless worthless slave. The only thing you had was trading your time and education for money and this is now gone. Your children will be worse off because the cost of education will no longer provide benefit. This will worsen as population grows. Eventually because resources are inherently scarce, someone somewhere with power, will decide its just better to reduce the number of mouths to free up resources; and they'll decide for you that you and your entire family meet that criteria, along with many others, but not the majority who voted those people into those positions of power. It will be a genocide of the rational and intelligent, powered by big data and your tax dollars. It won't be the old people because they represent the most power having started and accumulated power first, but they will eventually be on the chopping block as well. Along with this, production systems will fail, either as a result of vandalism, or growing corruption all causing shortage, which causes unrest and violence. With no market, or medium of exchange (inflationary economies fail when debts exceed production), order wanes. The rational and intelligent people will fight back weakly, trying to organize to survive by destroying the system of bondage and slavery that is imposed on them without their consent. Eventually everything fails as systemic issues cascade. Because intelligent people have the capability of great harm, they will be eliminated first favoring others instead. Are you worried yet? You should be, every single thing here logically follows the next with just a little educated background in economics and history. The world you say sounds so good, is in fact a hellscape world of spiraling madness, and intolerable suffering with no one capable of the first step (recognition) that can stop the death march forward. Anyone that could will have been killed long before recognition could happen in ways that don't attract attention and it will only show up in the actuarial tables under mortality. People will stop having children when they can no longer afford to. Old will crowd out the young as medical technology improves, and then there will be a great dying and collapse. Those that remain will have not been prepared, having developed in a disadvantaged environment and so these collapses may end in the annihilation of the civilization as a whole. By the time you recognize the problem (if at all) its too late to do anything about it, and your heads on the chopping block along with your family and friends because you had the intelligence to do the job in the first place, but not enough for you to foresee the consequences of your choices. You and others like you are so concerned with can you do something, that you didn't think about should you do something. Older generations called this type of blindness and destruction evil, and viewed it as a curable malady at the turn of the century; but not a cure anyone would willingly choose. Currently, we are on track for economic collapse by 2029, though the more they print the sooner it occurs. Mises has a full breakdown on how centralized systems fail, written in the 1930s. Its why socialism is considered a failed economic system by rational people.

Pinkthinker 2y ago

I’m pretty sure that LLMs will never replace programmers. It’s way too hard to stitch together code snippets. Also, when you think about all the misunderstandings that arise from pseudo code, free form text input to an LLM has to be even more ambiguous. I don’t care whether someone calls themselves a “prompt engineer”. But AI will replace programmers just like it superseded chess players. We are putting the finishing touches to an AI that write code. And not in an LLM kind of way. It allows you to specify exactly what you want without needing to specify the logic. Check out Ac28R.com We are excited about it, but it makes my heart ache when I think about the impact. The world is speeding up. We are the cause but we will struggle to avoid getting swept up in it.

vunderba 2y ago

This is my belief as well. Either one of three things happen (in order of most likely to least likely) 1. AI replaces software engineers in the same way that "autopilot" in planes replaced pilots. Augmentation of boilerplate (particularly devop CI/CD, deployment tedium) sounds pretty appealing to me. 2. AI genuinely replaces software engineers. If that's true, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't soon disrupt other engineering domains as well. At that point we're basically closing in on AGI, which doomsday predictions aside, I would like to hope leads radical progression of technology and evolution of mankind. 3. AI is completely banned/suppressed Dune style. This only strengthens my position in the market.

wruza 2y ago
AI genuinely replaces software engineers. If that's true, there's no reason to believe it wouldn't soon disrupt other engineering domains as well. If that’s true, then… How? Most engineering is physical and blueprint work which cannot be converted into embeddings and filled in the middle. Or if you’re assuming that something LLM/VLM/SD-like will appear for this domain, that’s a pretty wild guess. I even doubt that transformers are more suitable for that than now-classic boring ML. If you hope that the language will somehow “emerge itself” into building, schematics, industrial, etc behaviors, that’s also quite a guess. Make sure you’re not coping, because transformers generalize over (fuzzy) painting and text, the only data we have in abundance. These are common attributes of programmers, writers and graphics artists and barely anyone else, and the latter two are already screwed. We don’t have readily accessible logs for abstract thoughts, professional conversations at work or inner monologues. Maybe in ten years China will realize it and start to collect it at scale.
- vineyardlabs 2y ago
  This seems like a big assumption to me personally. To be clear, I happen to be of the opinion that AI/ML/LLMs/whatever cannot truly replace software engineers without the true advent of AGI. But to play devil's advocate. I'm an embedded SWE and work with circuit designers/have dabbled in some PCB design myself. Taking circuit design as an example: From an abstract logic standpoint, PCB design is not that different from software development. It essentially boils down to taking some input and feeding it through a cascade of various discrete transformations until you have some desired output. The fact that PCB designs are captured through schematics is irrelevant, as a schematic is just a visual representation of a netlist. There are even DSLs that allow for the design of circuits through code alone. The mechanisms that make LLMs work show some level of adaptability to domains outside of traditional language. It is totally conceivable today to finetune an LLM on netlists (or even on images of schematics with the right encoder model) and have it be able to generate circuit designs. The training data exists, though it's not as plentiful as say code or english texts. I'm not an ML expert but I believe it's totally possible to have something where, for example, the text "555 timer-based LED-blinking circuit", could map in embedding space to a netlist that describes said circuit. There are in fact companies working on this exact thing today (Flux.ai) I don't see why this wouldn't work for other engineering disciplines aswell. There's lots of public scad code for various 3d models. It's totally conceivable to build a model trained on scad or even raw 3d object file geometry and text embeddings to generate mechanical designs. Lot's of research is going into generative meshes which could be seen as an early form of this. I think my point being that the hard part of engineering, discipline aside, is being able to take a fuzzy set of desires from a customer and a fuzzy set of constraints and being able to use the hard math and science to create and iteratively refine a product/system/whatever to make all stakeholders happy. LLMs can't really emulate this process today.

trod123 2y ago

> I am personally not worried. Any outcome is great. Either I keep a well paid job and it becomes even more well paid, or AI is so good there aren't any jobs at all anymore, which sounds good too. You certainly have a rose-tinted magical way of viewing the world. You haven't thought through the consequences of this at all. I'll break this down a bit further for you hopefully in a way you can understand. You work to provide value in exchange for a store of value; currency. You do this to spend that currency on food and other basic necessities which are dependencies for your survival, first, and then discretionary spending second. Producers hire you so you can distribute labor and produce, so they can make a profit. They stop producing when that's no longer possible. Its an agreement between both parties which enable distribution of labor and exchange of goods flowing through an economy. Without either part, no exchange occurs, there may be a brief stalling period but when its stalled everyone's goose is cooked. It is a very fine balance, or supercritical state where deviations can cause exit conditions. Sound similar to an n-body problem; that's because it is, along with mathematical chaos (small changes in inputs create dramatic unpredictable changes in outputs). When there are no jobs, you can't earn currency, and you suddenly can't feed yourself. You have nothing to do, no way to differentiate yourself either. Worse, No one will listen to you because you no longer provide value, you are now a nameless worthless slave. The only thing you had was trading your time and education for money and this is now gone. Your children will be worse off because the cost of education will no longer provide benefit. This will worsen as population grows. Eventually because resources are inherently scarce, someone somewhere with power, will decide its just better to reduce the number of mouths to free up resources; and they'll decide for you that you and your entire family meet that criteria, along with many others, but not the majority who voted those people into those positions of power. It will be a genocide of the rational and intelligent, powered by big data and your tax dollars. It won't be the old people because they represent the most power having started and accumulated power first, but they will eventually be on the chopping block as well. Along with this, production systems will fail, either as a result of vandalism, or growing corruption all causing shortage, which causes unrest and violence. With no market, or medium of exchange (inflationary economies fail when debts exceed production), order wanes. The rational and intelligent people will fight back weakly, trying to organize to survive by destroying the system of bondage and slavery that is imposed on them without their consent. Eventually everything fails as systemic issues cascade. Because intelligent people have the capability of great harm, they will be eliminated first favoring others instead. Are you worried yet? You should be, every single thing here logically follows the next with just a little educated background in economics and history. The world you say sounds so good, is in fact a hellscape world of spiraling madness, and intolerable suffering with no one capable of the first step (recognition) that can stop the death march forward. Anyone that could will have been killed long before recognition could happen in ways that don't attract attention and it will only show up in the actuarial tables under mortality. People will stop having children when they can no longer afford to. Old will crowd out the young as medical technology improves, and then there will be a great dying and collapse. Those that remain will have not been prepared, having developed in a disadvantaged environment and so these collapses may end in the annihilation of the civilization as a whole. By the time you recognize the problem (if at all) its too late to do anything about it, and your heads on the chopping block along with your family and friends because you had the intelligence to do the job in the first place, but not enough for you to foresee the consequences of your choices. You and others like you are so concerned with can you do something, that you didn't think about should you do something. Older generations called this type of blindness and destruction evil, and viewed it as a curable malady at the turn of the century; but not a cure anyone would willingly choose. Currently, we are on track for economic collapse by 2029, though the more they print the sooner it occurs. Mises has a full breakdown on how centralized systems fail, written in the 1930s. Its why socialism is considered a failed economic system by rational people.