throw234234234

6 ms·

1.
by throw234234234 8d ago
The main way would be for people to use local models BEFORE the main AI labs take most of the excess economic activity. This creates demand for direct compute/land/energy rather than AI intelligence and as long as ownership of tho
2.
by throw234234234 9d ago
AI feudalism and/or monarchy although that could be quite awhile from now - there will be niches that are harder to integrate with AI that are protected for longer. A few owning everything; most other people surplus to requirements. Ca
3.
by throw234234234 9d ago
Real assets have utility of their own (i.e. a house to live in, commodity to build, etc). Money only exists to incentivize human economic actors to bother working, to relative price resources against each other and for governments to use as
4.
by throw234234234 9d ago
For awhile yes. Its ironic that the least productive people in knowledge work with the cushiest jobs will probably survive the AI wave the most. Because they do little they were probably employed for reasons other than utility/output i
5.
by throw234234234 9d ago
There is a lot of reasons why automated companies pay more but it is usually to do with augmentation and the remaining skills required being higher on the skills pyramid and more scarce. Efficiency gains usually cause the next bottleneck to
6.
by throw234234234 2mo ago
I suspect this is a "what you are used to" and have trained yourself to look out for over many years of code reading.
7.
by throw234234234 3mo ago
You are thinking growth in product and opportunities. But that doesn't always require or translate to more engineering especially in the face of AI efficiency if that work to support that growth can come from AI (NOTE: I'm not say
8.
by throw234234234 3mo ago
My opinion is that it is because the measure isn't aimed at technical people. It's aimed at clients that just want to specify what they want -> then get what they want without an engineer. They are pitching to their investors,
9.
by throw234234234 4mo ago
> A better move would be to stop allowing people to graduate in CS. Its a free market if you are the one paying for it solely. If you are willing to pay for the degree then the demand is there for them to sell you the product. Buyer bewa
10.
by throw234234234 4mo ago
If the industry is to shrink this is the best way it can. Stop people entering while they are young and can pivot into something with better returns. Keep the experienced people who are older and may find it harder to pivot and had some &qu
11.
by throw234234234 5mo ago
Searched online for it - there is this one https://github.com/fsprojects/fsharp-hashcollections . YMMV.
12.
by throw234234234 5mo ago
My personal anecdote when I talk to people - everyone when talking about their job w.r.t AI is like "at least I'm not a software engineer!". To give a hint this isn't just a US phenomenon - seen this in other countries t
13.
by throw234234234 5mo ago
I find algo performance is a consideration, but so is overall system performance especially in the face of concurrency, staleness, update rate, data processing size, consistency of data, etc. I think persistent collections are just another
14.
by throw234234234 5mo ago
F# has since gotten Functional State machines which make many computation expressions more efficient ( https://github.com/fsharp/fslang-design/blob/main/FSharp-6.0... ). Been there a while. I actually thin
15.
by throw234234234 5mo ago
Agree. Anthrophic in particular have been quite clear in what they are trying to do. Every blog post about every new model almost dismisses every other use case other than coding - every other use case seems almost a footnote in their commu
16.
by throw234234234 7mo ago
The question really is what you think the long term direction of SWE as a profession is. If we need juniors later and senior's become expensive that's a nice problem to have mostly and can be fixed via training and knowledge trans
17.
by throw234234234 7mo ago
Domain knowledge and gatekeeping. We don't know what is required in their role fully, but we do know what is required in ours. We also know that we are the target of potentially trillions in capital to disrupt our job and that the best
18.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
I think it's pretty clear that Anthrophic was the main AI lab pushing code automation right from the start. Their blog posts, everything just targeted code generation. Even their headings for new models in articules would be "code
19.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
All I can say to that is "I hope so too"; but logic is telling me otherwise at this point. Because the alternative, as evidenced by this thread, isn't all that good. The fear/dread in people since the holidays has been s
20.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
> disrupting others careers is why you have a career in the first place. Not every software project has or did this. In fact I would argue many new businesses exist that didn't exist before software and computing and people are doin
21.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
They commoditized their complement to their hardware/infra, that being software. Good for them and the value of tech will shift to what is still scarce relatively.
22.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
Because of point 3 most SWE's are also hesistant to pay for software. The positive feedback loop of "I did well out of this so i will support others as well" is over. When you are thinking your days are numbered any cost to d
23.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
I think AI has come as the industry was somewhat maturing and most frameworks/software had previous incarnations that mostly did the same thing or could be done adhoc anyway. The need for libraries as the models get better probably dec
24.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
In the face of LLM's it won't be rational for many people to open source their work. People don't want their work/effort being used against them.
25.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
Open source ended up disrupting the software profession; just not in the way people thought it would. If we didn't have open source arguably developers would be more secure, way more secure, in the face of AI.
26.
by throw234234234 8mo ago
My theory is that this (juniors unable to get in) is generally how industries/jobs die and phase out in a healthy manner that causes the least pain to its workers. I've seen this happen to a number of other industries with people
27.
by throw234234234 9mo ago
I wouldn't be surprised if it is only software and creative jobs that die. Whilst I still find it expensive to buy a house, get food, and the grunt work will still need labor. What that means for society where there are extremely rich
28.
by throw234234234 9mo ago
TL;DR: There's many more ways to lose money or barely break even than gain from AI investing. Because unlike previously: - You can't invest in these things directly (mostly private) so gains are at best diluted for retail inve
29.
by throw234234234 9mo ago
Amazing how much investment has mostly gone to eliminate one job category; ironically what was meant to be the job of the future "learn to code". To be honest on current trajectory I'm always amazed how many SWE's think
30.
by throw234234234 9mo ago
Indeed. I do wonder if the inventors of the "transformer architecture" knew all the potential Pandora's boxes they were opening when they invented it. Probably not. No one wants to say the scary potential logical conclusion o

More ›