I read the article far enough to confirm that it’s too biased to be taken seriously; I’m commenting more from the general high-level discussion of AI and labor.
The advances you mention wiping out software divisions: if you apply that to robotics, half of the workers in the world will be out of work.
This kind of thing is very far off, yes? (Which, in my opinion, makes your comment a tad bit nonsense in and of itself.)
I personally enjoy trying to get ChatGPT+ to try to write code for me. It’s really bad. It’s like a junior dev who can piece together puzzles you spend more time creating than it would take to do yourself. There’s really a paradigm shift between now and functional software-writing AI.
You’re implying technology will exist where it doesn’t currently exist, not that current tech will be rearranged. I feel you’re predicting the future in a almost-as-ridiculous way. I personally stick to the (perhaps oversimplified) notion that software will be the last industry to be replaced by AI.
You don’t need a physical robot to replace software engineers. I can envision one person scripting an entire complex application and an AI generating all of the code to perfection. To update the app, that one person adds qualifiers to the original text and the AI will update the code and automatically handle api/schema changes.
I see this happening within five years, maybe sooner.
Your prediction here incorporates the paradigm shift I mentioned above. The AI software upon which your prediction relies does not yet exist. There is a huge gap between the current functionality and AI that can produce non-trivial end-to-end programs.
It’s tempting to fall into the trap of “five years away” because things like copilot are so significantly different from what we had before.
As far as I’m concerned, Occam’s Razor tends to suggest much bigger changes in how robotics affects labor. We simply have to build new robots. There’s no paradigm shift necessary to design a new robot; only labor on the part of the engineers. It’s also relevant here that most folks aren’t too keen to be employed as automation engineers. It’s not exactly glamorous to work explicitly towards the purpose of removing others’ jobs.
I personally feel that scientific advances in AI will slow down, not speed up. There’s plenty of research to do in computer science, obviously, but scientific breakthroughs slow down over time.
The advances you mention wiping out software divisions: if you apply that to robotics, half of the workers in the world will be out of work.
This kind of thing is very far off, yes? (Which, in my opinion, makes your comment a tad bit nonsense in and of itself.)
I personally enjoy trying to get ChatGPT+ to try to write code for me. It’s really bad. It’s like a junior dev who can piece together puzzles you spend more time creating than it would take to do yourself. There’s really a paradigm shift between now and functional software-writing AI.
You’re implying technology will exist where it doesn’t currently exist, not that current tech will be rearranged. I feel you’re predicting the future in a almost-as-ridiculous way. I personally stick to the (perhaps oversimplified) notion that software will be the last industry to be replaced by AI.