Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
its very tedious to have to explain this to people irl because they're always like "yeah people have always been afraid of automation, they'll just find other jobs" and they dont really have the desire, patience or background to understand the difference beween, say, robot welders on a car assembly line and a general-purpose AI.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

akadajet posted:

after playing with chatgpt Iím pretty sure my programming career is safe

played with copilot at all?

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
like no its not replacing us today but if you can't see it on the horizon you need glasses

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

Cybernetic Vermin posted:


also automation should be good

should be but typically aint.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

akadajet posted:

can I feed it design mockups and have it implement everything?

no, but automation rarely automates every step of the process first. It absolutely writes common code for you, and by 'writes' of course I mean "steals from people who open-sourced their projects".

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
again:

rotor posted:

like no its not replacing us today but if you can't see it on the horizon you need glasses

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

akadajet posted:

I think you're wrong.

yeah? well I think you're wrong!!

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

there is literally no way they can be worse than human-produced tests is the thing

yeah like i think people tend to forget just how low the bar is for replacing human programmers

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
yeah i think that ok its yospos and computers are bad and its all jokes but i think people sometimes need to take a moment and consider that maybe computers are an important factor in everyones life and whether that was a good idea or not, its a fact and we should at some point try to at least some approximation of a civil engineers sense of public responsibility

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
i typed that whole thing on my phone so if it doesnt make any sense its tim cooks fault

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

echinopsis posted:

before computers people in my job had to manually typewriter every drug label and also record every single drug entry into a big loving book and hand write all god drat day

good

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

polyester concept posted:

so far it seems like ai can only do variations of what already exists. you still need somebody familiar with the requirements and limitations of the project to be able to determine if the ai generated code is useful. in the not too distant future i can see a lot of developer jobs shifting towards guiding an ai towards a specific goal by defining input parameters. when ai can replace that job, then weíre in trouble

i mean like 10 years ago if someone had told me I'd be able to say "produce an image of galdalf riding a giant duck in the style of vincent van gogh" and it would produce such an image I'd have said you were nuts.

Given the immense fiscal rewards for making a machine that takes input of, for instance, UML diagrams and natural language requirements, I dont see how we wont see something like that in 10 years.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

The Management posted:

put another way, they are good at emulating language. they are not capable of emulating thought.

they are not going to take programming jobs because they cannot come up with solutions to problems. they donít have that kind of intelligence, and they wonít. not ten years from now either.

they wonít even replace art jobs except in the most trivial cases where quality doesnít matter. they will become a tool for artists to produce things much more rapidly.

yes, and they will absolutely replace a bunch of programmers writing code where quality doesnt matter as well. As an interesting thought experiment, how many programmers would you say that represents, as a fraction of the total?

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

fart simpson posted:

"given the immense fiscal rewards for making a car that drives itself, i don't see how we won't see something like that in 10 years"
- many people, 10 years ago

if a corporation had the programmer equivalent of Tesla FSD in 10 years they will absolutely be shoving that crap into production as fast as they could

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

Beeftweeter posted:

i think you're overestimating how high the bar for "good enough" is

this is the unassailable foundation upon which i have chosen to build my fortress of rhetoric

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

fart simpson posted:

im just saying that some of the things that seem doable end up being really hard, and other things that seem hard end up doable. maybe copilot 3000 wont end up being good enough to make a real dent

but yeah maybe, idk, im not fuckin Kreskin over here

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
like i dont think there's suddenly going to be zero programmers. I just think that vast swathes of them that are working on vanilla predictable business database skins will be put out of work in favor of a few people who know how to put all this poo poo using ai generated code.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

git apologist posted:

those people will be redirected to yet another worthless and annoying task that doesnít need to be done

another worthless and annoying task that pays far less and allows money to accumulate more readily in the hands of the already wealthy

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

Beeftweeter posted:

because the output is based upon prior work i'm not convinced it can come up with something truly original. in that sense looking at generated text is pretty instructive, i.e. you can see that, for example, in this style of writing this sequence of words is generally used with this lexical structure and these subjects usually go with these terms, etc.

most of the big money makers in the tech world have not made all their money because of their unique code.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

fart simpson posted:

i mean honestly, how often are things completely invented from the ground up? mashing together existing things in new combinations is probably most of originality anyway

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

fart simpson posted:

interesting placement of negatives in this sentence structure

i'm full of gummi bears

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

don't know much about law, but suspect that this is the same sort of deal as in programming where people automatically think about the 2% of the time when one is writing actually important core logic/algorithm code, which wont get automated because it is both the interesting and most important part. as opposed to the other 98% which is dreary repetitive stuff which takes all the longer and has more errors because it is dreary and repetitive.

that is, the actual oral arguments being the actual human interaction core part of the proceedings i doubt there's any push for adding a bunch of ai nonsense to it. if i understand correctly though there's a ton of searching and collating documents, producing exhaustive filings, and summarizing up the relevant information in preparation involved, which all seems more amenable to ai (good automatic summarization and semantic search both seeming pretty plausible with current tech) and the kind of thing humans are pretty bad at.

idk poo poo about the field but I suspect liability will be a serious issue here and the first couple times an AI produces an inaccurate summary or makes up case law out of whole cloth there will be some fireworks.

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
thats the bar for a permaban??

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

rotor
Jun 11, 2001

Official Carrier of the Neil Bush torch
tired: numberwang
wired: tormentnexus

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply