The point is to stimulate brainstorming, not get answers.
IMO it's more like a coder using AI to make their job easier. It's still up to a human to come up with the individual problem the function solves, architect a solution from multiple functions/objects/etc, come up with a data model, and so on and so on. The AI just generates the code itself. And at least as of now, the code needs to be double-checked.
Sure, there will always be demand for a Linus Torvalds or a Damien Hirst. But will there be demand for Coder #365968 at Infosys or a graphic designer pumping out $50 ad banners?
We’re looking at the possibility of some white collar jobs having the same income disparity as creative jobs. Just as there are some musicians who make hundreds of millions while the vast majority barely make ends meet, we may have a future where the star programmers make millions while the average players are automated out of the competition.
Eventually, I agree yes. But there could be a boom of huge new investments into A.I products, more devs needed and in fact teams getting way more requirements since they are more productive. Imagine the stuff we will be able to build in things like search, personal assistants, biomed, in fact what industry won't this affect? Its unbelievable to me that people are now saying Google search might become obsolete, that's absolutely crazy. Not many people saw that one coming. But at least initially I don't think GPT models will be able to do everything themselves. So its very hard to determine that say in the coming 5 years devs will find it more difficult to get a job. 10-20 years from now sure, I don't see how anyone gets a cognitive job anymore let alone devs. In fact our entire school/university system is probably obsolete, kids are probably learning skills they won't be able to apply in any job market. We need to start think about stuff like teaching kids emotional intelligence, spirituality and meditation...not cramming for a math test.
If an ad agency or a magazine publisher can get a custom illustration that works for my purposes from Dall-E, then they ain't paying no artist. Not theoritical, many already do use those generated images.
That's not just "making the artist's job easier". It's taking jobs from artists (well, illustrators and graphic designers at least), especially in the cheaper end of the business (e.g. not Nike, but your local Pet Store chain, restaurant, or news outlet, sure).
So yes, not OP, but I think artists will still have jobs, although less of them, and the job will be different.
Midjourney V4 is amazing. It spits out absolutely beautiful images.
There's enough art talent already around in the world to entirely commoditize the supply of it for the little one-off no-style-guide-to-follow commissioned works you're talking about. It's just not currently a liquid market — supply and demand find it hard to discover one-another — and so a true market-clearing price can't be set.
Meanwhile, AI is not currently taking anyone's advertising-campaign graphic design job, or anything else where the "efficient-market price" (in a world where human "art sweatshops" existed) would be more than $5.
I find it best to accept it will most likely replace all of us, from doctors to coders to even psychotherapists. Won't happen next year but 10-20 years is a very long time this thing keeps getting better. Eventually we won't be able to tell if its a machine or a brilliant superhuman. The bummer in all of this, in my view, isn't the loss of jobs; we'll find what to do. It's the transition period - the accounting wizard or the brilliant doctor losing their jobs and status and becoming kindergarten teachers or care takers or unemployed. Nothing in their upbringing or life experience prepared them for such a thing ... so that's probably gonna be rough for many people. But once most people went through the transition it won't be bad. Society I believe will be better off. We will stop being obsessed with money and status and spend much more time with family and friends. Entertainment will be insanely good and so will healthcare. Possibly medicine to make our moods better. It could be utopia.
First, I don't see "utopia" as likely; furthermore, I have a suspicion it may be impossible, given human nature.
Second, even the argument that society will be "better" demands much more reflection. The implied argument above is only a sketch. I don't find it convincing much less plausible. I'll call attention to four points (implied from above):
1. AI will replace humans in most or all professions
2. AI quality will be much higher than the previous human levels
3. A broad swath of people (using some notion of equity and fairness) will have enough money to live happily
4. "We'll spend much more time with family and friends"
Each of the four points are quite uncertain. Furthermore, even if `k` is true, `k+1` does not follow.
Who would like to flesh out some ways the sequence (1, 2, 3, 4) might happen?
Anyway speculating is fun but you're right its just speculating. My main point is we should always keep in mind this could turn out to be great .
_And_ if since we care about our AI-interdependent future, more of us (as in the people here on HN) need to wade into the gory details, including ethics and the current power structures. The "technology" (as in algorithms, data structures, hardware, etc) is arguably the "easy" part. There are plenty of existing incentives and structures to keep those _moving_. But moving in what direction? Even the notion of an "ethical compass" seems antiquated in light of current technology. We may have to reframe everything. This is a big challenge.
They get nothing but tents and shame.
Where are the examples of the middle voting against the extremes when times get really hard?
The Star Trek post-scarcity utopia scenario feels very unlikely; Mad Max-style scrapping for leftovers while Musk, Bezos, et. al. live behind walls feels infinitely more probable.
How do you implement UBI when a huge proportion of the political class is vehemently against it. Maybe we need to AI politicians, so they start to figure it out?
And remember, we are still a democracy. We get to vote. We control the army and the police and all institutions. If we decide that this capitalism isn't hot sh* anymore we can change it. What will the evil billionaires do? (this sounds like a good straight to DVD movie actually...hey GPT write me a script about this)
Yes, this is a big problem.
However... a lot of people would enjoy being teachers, albeit with significant improvements to the educational systems.
This is a prediction?
Given human nature and the diversity of people (w.r.t. rationality, religiosity, morality, capability, and so on), it is very much an open question about (a) how AI capabilities will develop; (b) how they will be paid for... (c) and by whom; (d) to whom will benefits accrue; (e) how will society change.
These are broad, sweeping questions. Plenty of fodder for imagination, hope, transformation, cynicism, backsliding, or even despair.
If I were to make a bet, on our current trajectory, I see some key factors in tension:
1. educational quality, in absolute terms, increasing _and_ being more equitable
2. educational quality, in relative terms, continuing to be very unequal and probably getting more so. As one example, who has the resources to direct computationally intensive AI experiments? There are (and probably will be for a long time) gatekeepers for these resources. People that mix in this circles have a huge advantage. This makes me wonder if "exclusivity leads to inequality" is a saying from some philosopher.
I doubt very much that this is a testable theory. I think it is primarily a normative one.
As nice as this would be, I think there's roughly 0% chance of it happening. Over the past few millenia humans have doubled productivity per capita a ridiculous number of times. None of those leaps led to an end of status seeking or a transition towards mostly leasure time for the masses.
Instead I expect more of the opposite from these developments. Power will get increasingly concentrated with people who have very little interest in the needs and wants of the plebs.
At least in OpenAI's case I think they take this thing very seriously (Sam Altman doesn't strike me as evil one bit, quite the opposite in fact https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEvbDq6BOVM). In fact most of the tech elites don't seem evil to me, if they only cared about money Zuckerberg and Gates wouldn't have pledged away all their wealth. Some of them are as you describe but I think most of them are actually somewhere in the progressive axis.
So far it hasn't worked out too well...
It's up to us. Indeed easier said than done in the current dysfunctional and polarized politics of ours but we can still do it.
For the philanthropy, I'll just note that these pledges don't involve literally transferring 99% of wealth out of their control. The vast majority of the pledged money goes to a trust the person controls, organizations they have some relation to, or just stay completely in their control for years with only vague non-binding commitments to eventually donate it. In return for this largess they get significant reputational and tax compensation.
Therefore, in most orgs, code architecture/style is a distant secondary to 'does it achieve what the user will pay money for' and 'why isn't it finished yesterday?'.
If you don't understand the program ChatGPT wrote, it will happily butcher it for you, because it doesn't really understand it either.
Don't worry, you wont be there at the org to make these "fruitful conversations" either. The AI will take your job too
I've been waiting for something to take my job for 15 years.
I started as a small developer testing radio firmware, moved on to test web firmware, now I instruct terraform how to build infrastructure and now I instruct developers on how to do things to build proper infrastructure.
I'm ready to retire but apparently I'm incapable of having an AI that can actually simulate Super Power ADHD at work, so we'll have to wait a bit.
Every company has suffered from the decision, in my experience. Never has it destroyed the employer, but I have heard stories about such eventualities.
For all the important contributions Steve Jobs made to Apple when he returned, maybe the least heralded and hardest to implement is that he managed to NOT make himself irreplaceable. To many people's surprise, Apple did not collapse after his retirement and death. So maybe his most genius contribution was not to make Apple dependent on his ongoing genius contributions.
> So maybe his most genius contribution was not to make Apple dependent on his ongoing genius contributions.
That's because its even lower level characters in managements deciding...
This wont fly at organizations that need the code to work, every time, but think about the explosion of non-programmers who can now make systems that “basically work”. If you don’t think “basically works” is a high enough bar to succeed in e-commerce, let me show you my recent support email threads with companies from whom I’ve been trying to purchase Xmas gifts for my wife.
But this thing is not a sub for coders. It is an assistant to coders. And yes, being able to explain the code is incredibly important. Just as it is to verify the code.
To me, this is just another exercise where coder becomes manager of his very own coder. And has to check the code his coder produced.
If a coder can write code, but they can’t do that, they’re useless to the org. It will be faster for me to write their code myself than to maintain what they’ve done.
So really that’s what I’d need from an AI coder. Writing the code is good, but can we talk about it and can you learn the specific architecture principles we have applie in this specific codebase.