The progress made since the start has been wild, and if it keeps increasing, even at a much slower pace, it's gonna be even better.
That's like people looking at N64 games saying "wow, these new 3D graphics sure look like ass, they'll never catch on and replace 2D games". Or like people looking at the output of early C compilers going "wow, this is so unoptimized, I'll stick to coding in assembly for my career since nobody will ever use compilers for serious work".
It boggles my mind how ignorant people can be about progress and disruption based on how past history played out. Oh well, at least more power to those who embrace the new tech early on.
0.001 is infinitely more than 0, and yet it's a far way off from 1. Call me when we've reached 0.2 at least.
Back with N64 or C compilers, we didn't talk about energy requirements on the level of small countries and billions of dollars to even compete with the status quo. You're like one of those guys in the fifties, thinking it'll only be a few more years until we're all commuting in flying cars powered by nuclear reactors.
> "wow, this is so unoptimized, I'll stick to coding in assembly for my career since nobody will ever use compilers for serious work"
I’m sure somebody said that, but I don’t think it was a common sentiment.
Rather, people said that there were still some cases that required some assembly programming. And it is true. It’s just a niche. One they gets smaller over time. If you are a generalist it makes sense to retrain. If you are a specialist, there’s some level of socialization where you can get away with continuing to program assembly.
Do you really feel this way? I feel like we're probably batting better than 50%, but plenty of revolutionary technologies never manifest, and more specifically, there's such a wide swath of predictions. Sure I think LLM's will continue to get more useful, and they're helpful for programming, but the range of predictions runs the gamut from Software engineers may become a bit higher level like software managers/architects to, LLM's will bring on the end of scarcity and all white color jobs within the next 10 years.
Like, how is some hesitance towards the possibilities of this specific implementation of AI "ignorant of the progress and disruption of history". A casual glance at the headlines around blockchain ~ 6 years ago should invite some skepticism.
I think in some ways this is like looking at the difference between Camera only self-driving vs all the tools. I think it's quite possible LLM's look more like camera-only self-driving which will continue to get marginally better but may never solve the problem, and we're still waiting on the insight/architecture that will bring us full AGI.
The progress made since the start has been wild, and if it keeps increasing, even at a much slower pace, it's gonna be even better.
That's like people looking at N64 games saying "wow, these new 3D graphics sure look like ass, they'll never catch on and replace 2D games". Or like people looking at the output of early C compilers going "wow, this is so unoptimized, I'll stick to coding in assembly for my career since nobody will ever use compilers for serious work".
It boggles my mind how ignorant people can be about progress and disruption based on how past history played out. Oh well, at least more power to those who embrace the new tech early on.