you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 203 points 2 years ago* (5 children)

Short term yes; long term probably not. All the dipshit c-suites pushing the “AI” worker replacement initiatives are going to destroy their workforces and then realize that LLMs can’t actually reliably replace any of the workers they fired. And I love that for management.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 85 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    They're gonna realize the two jobs it can actually replace is HR and the C suite.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Lol AI cannot replace either of those jobs. "I'm sorry I can't help with your time off request but here is a gluten free recipe for a pie that feeds 30 people."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I bet project managers could be replaced with AI super easily, I mean all they have to do is respond to all messages with 👍

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It can potentially allow 1 worker to do the job of 10. For 9 of those workers, they have been replaced. I don't think they will care that much for the nuance that they technically weren't replaced by AI, but by 1 co-worker who is using AI to be more efficient.

    That doesn't necessarily mean that we won't have enough jobs any more, because when in human history have we ever become more efficient and said "ok, good enough, let's just coast now"? We will just increase the ambition and scope of what we will build, which will require more workers working more efficiently.

    But that still really sucks because it's not going to be the same exact jobs and it will require re-training. These disruptions are becoming more frequent in human history and it is exhausting.

    We still need to spread these gains so we can all do less and also help those whose lives have been disrupted. Unfortunately that doesn't come for free. When workers got the 40 hour work week it was taken by force.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    My colleagues are starting to use AI, it just makes their code worse and harder to review. I honestly can’t imagine that changing, AI doesn’t actually understand anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Probably. I'm just not seeing it actually doing any logic or problem solving. It’s a pattern matching machine today. A new technology could certainly happen.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Do you know what pattern matching is great for? Finding commonly cited patterns in long debug log messages. LLMs are great for brainstorming problem solving. They're basically word granularity search engines, so they're great for looking things up are more niche knowledge that document search engines fail on. If the thing you're trying to look up doesn't exist, it will make shit up so you need to cross reference everything, but it's still incredibly helpful. Pattern matching is also great for boilerplate. I use the codium extension and it comes up with auto complete suggestions that don't have much logic, but save a good amount of key strokes.

    I didn't think the foundational tech of LLMs are going to get substantially better, but we will develop programming patterns that make them more robust and reliable.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You're referring to something that is changing and getting better constantly. In the long term LLMs are going to be even better than they are now. It's ridiculous to think that it won't be able to replace any of the workers that were fired. LLMs are going to allow 1 person to do the job of multiple people. Will it replace all people? No. But even if it allows 1 person to do the job of 2 people, that's 50% of the workforce unemployed. This isn't even mentioning how good robotics have gotten over the past 10 years.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You must have one person constantly checking for hallucinations in everything that is generated: how is that going to be faster?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -4 points 2 years ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    It's hard to improve when the data in is human and the data out cannot be error checked back against its own data in. It's like trying to solve a math problem with two calculators that both think 2+2 = 6 because the data they were given said that it's true.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    (not actually everything, but I get your hyperbole)

    How is it hyperbole? All artificial neural networks have "hallucinations", no matter their size. What's your magic way of knowing when that happens?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago

    LLMs now are trained on data generated by other LLMs. If you look at the "writing prompt" stuff 90% is machine generated (or so bad that I assume it's machine generated) and that's the data that is being bought right now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    There is a plateau to be hit at some point. How close it is, depends who you ask. Some say we are close, others say we are not but it definitely exists. LLMs suffer, just like other forms of machine learning, from data overload. You simply can't be infinitely feeding it data and keep getting better and better results. ChatGPT's models got famous because value function for learning had humans involved who helped curate quality of responses.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -12 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    That’s not what is going to happen. Copilot will simply increase productivity over, and where before they needed 10 people, gradually, through attrition they will need only 9, then 8, and so on. That does not mean higher unemployment though, it means more product.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    • "AI means there will be fewer people required to do the same amount of work"

    • "this does not mean higher unemployment"

    I think you left out a steep off reasoning there. At least, I don't follow.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    When productivity increases (as it has been doing for ages) the manufacturing output increases. That’s what normally happens.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 child)

    But the amount of workers will only stay the same if demand grows at the same rate as the production output.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well, the price goes down, or/end the salaries go up, or resources are freed for new investments…

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    Businesses want to grow, not keep stable. They might fire a few ppl in the short term, but in the long term it’s more likely the group of 10 would just do now the work of a 12-13 group with AI, producing hugher outputs for the same money they were getting before, meaning extra profit for the shareholders.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments