No offense, but if writing the actual code is the part slowing you down there's something very wrong.
> The hardest parts of software are nailing down requirements, scheduling work, and fitting square pegs into round holes for legacy systems at a conceptual level.
Then why do we hire PMs and have engineering ICs? The only reason any of this is hard is because 1) there are a lot of stakeholders and moving pieces and 2) humans are subject to context switching productivity losses. Machines will absolutely be able to inject themselves into these business processes and chip away at our inefficiencies.
I bet you you're wrong. I quit my $400k+/yr TC job to focus on AI because I believe in this so strongly.
Let's check back in five years.
I'm hiring, btw.
From what I’ve seen so far the ‘impactful’ models take tons of cash to initially train, tons of cash to continue to train and tons of cash to provide “free” access to the public to get the hypetrain chugging along.
Not criticizing but this is what I think people should be worried about, the “future” locked behind a handful of super rich corporate firewalls. Not even mentioning they have real-time data feeds on virtually everything they can pump through their AI for whatever purposes they can dream up. And I’m not even paranoid…
Actually, this I agree with. Chat bots in their current form would help bridge technical knowledge gaps between stakeholders.
Whether it would significantly lean up the less technical staff seems unlikely. Getting rid of engineering is even less likely.
> there are a lot of stakeholders and moving pieces
Yes. There are so many extending all the way out to internet discussions like this one and beyond to consumers, investors, etc... I think all this discussion is necessary to actually making anything of value. Will consulting chat bots instead of hacker news be the future, or is that where we admit there's something pathological going on?
> humans are subject to context switching productivity losses
I don't think letting people figure out what they want is a "productivity loss".
Swan song that started as the singers started regarding IQs of 0 as acceptable actors.
and in general, actions are based - prescriptively - on concretions of layers of developed intelligence (wisdom), intelligence which is constantly applied and exercised (just with different occasional effort, for resource management). If somebody went sparingly, their own practice and our damage - if they are active.
So, again: a "sub-bohemian" idea that "anything goes" is the swan song. Wait till you actually needed intelligent action, to prevent critical losses.
--
I will rephrase coincisely: you are supposed to exercise intelligence at any action. If you do not do it, your vice.
This (in context) is not the «AI wave». Artificial Intelligence is that which automates solution finding normally tasked to a professional. It has to be qualitatively adequate and competitive (which you could take as the real meaning of the "Turing test" - otherwise, "being scammed by con artists" was already a known factor and perspective at the time of the formulation). If any output fitted the definition, a random number generator (or a constant output) would fit as AI.
Go back to Popper (this name just for example): there has to be a metric for "success".
The AI wave is going to be bigger than the internet in terms of societal impact.
We're watching humanity's swan song in real time.