Re:Yann LeCun on GPT-3
by fludlight on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @11:42AM
(#24908485)
“AI” replacing the jobs of AI engineers. But we were told it was only going to do that to blue collar work!
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Better IDEs have saved countless hours. Saving hours is equivalent to replacing jobs, unless demand is elastic enough to fill that time. Most of the time we are lucky enough that demand at a given price point is much larger than supply, but this won't last forever.
that's not how it works... as it is not a zero sum (i.e. the work is not bounded/fixed but it increases).
IDEs and higher level tools help engineers become more productive. They can do more, with less. This raises the bar on products, and the demand of customers for them (things are pretier, easier to use, etc..), which in turn creates more domains for software to be used, and more demand for engineers.
Google "Induced Demand"
Because most "AI engineering" has lost its meaning and is actually data analysis.
Did it ever have a single meaning? Every company I've been through had a different definition of what "AI engineering" should be
Re:Yann LeCun on GPT-3
by disgruntledphd2 on Tuesday October 27, 2020 @03:30PM
(#24910901)
AI engineering: a means of extraction of venture capital from gullible investors :)
Mostly sarcasm, mostly.