Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Vibe coding....it gets you 80% of the way there. Some folks think that's good enough/don't know to check, others see this as full employment to fix. And this is only going to keep getting better.

I do not think vibe coding gets you 80% of the way there. I do not think vibe coding even gets you 60% of the way there for something minor. And I say that as someone who has used AI to code little tools for myself at work a lot. You have to understand logic and troubleshooting to even use AI to code anything. Coding is really, really complex and there are lots of security requirements and client requirements. AI is good for structured language and giving you snippets that you can use.

A lot of the “news” we are reading about AI feels like a scam.

I can tell you didn't read the article.

No, I did, and I think he’s lying. I think most of the people trying to sell AI are lying. It is a transformative tool, but these people are scammers.

For example, this dude writes:

Let me give you an example so you can understand what this actually looks like in practice. I'll tell the AI: "I want to build this app. Here's what it should do, here's roughly what it should look like. Figure out the user flow, the design, all of it." And it does. It writes tens of thousands of lines of code. Then, and this is the part that would have been unthinkable a year ago, it opens the app itself. It clicks through the buttons. It tests the features. It uses the app the way a person would. If it doesn't like how something looks or feels, it goes back and changes it, on its own. It iterates, like a developer would, fixing and refining until it's satisfied. Only once it has decided the app meets its own standards does it come back to me and say: "It's ready for you to test." And when I test it, it's usually perfect.

I'm not exaggerating. That is what my Monday looked like this week.

Very cool! What app is this? Where is it? Can we use it? Where are these apps written by AI?

I don't think you're seeing the forest for the trees.

Ok. Let me say this more plainly.

Can you name anything AI has done? Any jobs it has fully replaced? Any books written by AI? Any apps? Any notable content?

I use AI enterprise tools every day- they are great! But it is still a lot of work to verify, review, and rewrite what AI gives me. I can’t comment on these magical exclusive tools that will replace workers but I’m pretty sure they don’t exist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Senior Python Developer. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. In my case and I repeat my case (meaning my experience) GitHub copilot has been spectacular. My productivity has increased significantly. I know everyone is asking for specifics. So let me give you specifics. I wrote code mostly functional style. I can write copilot to generate for me in this style. We have had a vacant position for 12 months. And we don't need to fill it because the person in that post pretty much does the same thing I do.

Does it mean AI is going to replace me? Maybe. But the question really is whether I should waste my time worrying about whether AI will take over my job. I am just worried about learning whatever tools at my disposal.

I am just confused why people are pushing back so forcebly over something they have ZERO influence over. The amount of money being spent on AI is massive. Your congresspeople cannot stop it. You cannot stop it.

Everytime someone says something about AI someone jumps in and say I have used and it was useless. Therefore because it was useless for you last week it will be useless a year from now okay great lol.

Or every shortcomings of AI is so magnified and become subject of mockery

Hey you make decisions for yourself. If you think you are safe today and 10 years from now great for you.

And to your point, AI is doing stuff for YOU a tech bro. But to the people you talk to who aren’t in tech, AI isn’t doing anything for them. AI is being built for the tech bros of which you are one. The systems the rest of us use are complete crap. Older than the hills technology. (Not really, but you understand the meaning). The fact that portals at the doctors offices are horrible, the computers at the hospitals require a ton of wait time teachers have awful systems to record grading. All of those things would be a better use of money for more of us. A robot to clean dishes would be awesome. But that isn’t what tech is doing, tech is building for tech to keep money in the higher levels of tech.

Most of us are fighting it because we see exactly zero of this. It isn’t improving our lives and the more you all sap money to make things easier for you, the less money there will be for the rest of us who are out doing things to make society run.

+1

I deal with people as my job. People who need a helping hand, are dealing with hard situations, or could use a caring conversation. I've been tinkering with AI for improving my writing, since that is how I thought it could help me with my job. I'm not impressed. In fact, I wrote a paragraph, and someone gave me "feedback". I thought it was super wordy and more confusing than what I wrote. I had a hunch, so I took my original paragraph and ran it through our org's AI. Yup, sure enough, it spit out the "feedback" verbatim. I think I'm going to tinker next with spreadsheets, not sure how yet. But some people are having a hard time understanding that for many fields, AI just isn't a game changer. Maybe it will be in the future, but now, it just annoys me.

AI is actually really, really good for mastering all kinds of cool excel features. Excel is extremely powerful but lots of its features are not intuitive and require multiple steps or even VBA code, which an LLM can walk you through and troubleshoot step by step, and quickly. This is the best thing I have found it does at work and it’s quite valuable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s alarmist. It’s also more of an elaborate self-promo than think piece, so manipulative as well.

And despite being created with AI help, it’s poorly written.

I didn't think it was poorly written at all. I'm a professional writer. Actually, I think it was very well written and explained these things in a very accessible way for a lay audience.

Np. I’m a writer too, and agree it was well written. But that’s also why I think it seemed like AI helped write it. To smooth. I happen to agree with his thesis too, though I’m hoping it turns out to be a false prophecy.

Listen, if AI can do your job as well or better than you, it doesn’t mean AI is amazing - it means you’re not that good at your job.

DP here and you are totally full of shit. AI can do things that humans cannot. That’s literally the entire point. Not being able to compete with AI is not a personal failure, it’s the intentional and inevitable outcome of wealthy business owners valuing $$ over humanity. None of this is the fault of the average worker and you are way out of line to even suggest such a foolish thing.

Like what? Provide some actual evidence to back up this assertion.

Build, test, self correct, annd open an App in 4 hours. Read the article.

To accept the premise that AI can build an app without human intervention, shouldn’t whoever is making that claim name which app it is and make it available for people to test and use?

In fairness at some some organizations you can have up to a dozen people involved in writing an App. If AI can cut that number by 2/3, in my opinion that's equivalent to replacing people with AI. Human intervention will be needed. But if we now need 4 instead of 12 and if we start seeing this across sectors then it will be dishonest to claim that AI ain't having an impact on employment.

I don't deny that AI boosts productivity, including my own. And in the short run, that may lead to significant staffing cuts or not replacing attrition. But that's different than outright replacing human staff, and we've seen huge technological leaps that increased productivity before. In the end something like the internet led to entirely new industries, not just destruction.

But neither the internet nor any other technological leaps that we’ve experienced before have been fully autonomous, sentient, and with both mental and physical capabilities that surpass our own, nor have we ceded the control to any technology as we will to AI. We’re not quite there yet, but it’s the endpoint of our current trajectory and the pace os rapidly accelerating. This is not just the next step of technological progress, where humans have a new and improved tool, this is more closely akin to the evolution of a new and improved “lifeform”.

Logically speaking (and they will operate logically, even if their basic assumptions differ from a human’s), humanity will serve little purpose and yet cause problems, especially since we will be in competition for resources (water, power, metals, etc.). Instead of comparing AI to the internet, I think a more accurate analogy would be to compare modern humanity to the Neanderthals who were overtaken by a more efficient species.

A huge problem right now is that AI can be manipulated for nefarious purposes.

Anthropic released a completely AI-controlled vending machines and humans were able to trick it into giving everything away for free. Even when they then “fixed” it, humans were again able to quickly trick it.

Another CEO said the AI completely deleted his company database that required lots of man hours to recreate it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Senior Python Developer. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. In my case and I repeat my case (meaning my experience) GitHub copilot has been spectacular. My productivity has increased significantly. I know everyone is asking for specifics. So let me give you specifics. I wrote code mostly functional style. I can write copilot to generate for me in this style. We have had a vacant position for 12 months. And we don't need to fill it because the person in that post pretty much does the same thing I do.

Does it mean AI is going to replace me? Maybe. But the question really is whether I should waste my time worrying about whether AI will take over my job. I am just worried about learning whatever tools at my disposal.

I am just confused why people are pushing back so forcebly over something they have ZERO influence over. The amount of money being spent on AI is massive. Your congresspeople cannot stop it. You cannot stop it.

Everytime someone says something about AI someone jumps in and say I have used and it was useless. Therefore because it was useless for you last week it will be useless a year from now okay great lol.

Or every shortcomings of AI is so magnified and become subject of mockery

Hey you make decisions for yourself. If you think you are safe today and 10 years from now great for you.

And to your point, AI is doing stuff for YOU a tech bro. But to the people you talk to who aren’t in tech, AI isn’t doing anything for them. AI is being built for the tech bros of which you are one. The systems the rest of us use are complete crap. Older than the hills technology. (Not really, but you understand the meaning). The fact that portals at the doctors offices are horrible, the computers at the hospitals require a ton of wait time teachers have awful systems to record grading. All of those things would be a better use of money for more of us. A robot to clean dishes would be awesome. But that isn’t what tech is doing, tech is building for tech to keep money in the higher levels of tech.

Most of us are fighting it because we see exactly zero of this. It isn’t improving our lives and the more you all sap money to make things easier for you, the less money there will be for the rest of us who are out doing things to make society run.

+1

I deal with people as my job. People who need a helping hand, are dealing with hard situations, or could use a caring conversation. I've been tinkering with AI for improving my writing, since that is how I thought it could help me with my job. I'm not impressed. In fact, I wrote a paragraph, and someone gave me "feedback". I thought it was super wordy and more confusing than what I wrote. I had a hunch, so I took my original paragraph and ran it through our org's AI. Yup, sure enough, it spit out the "feedback" verbatim. I think I'm going to tinker next with spreadsheets, not sure how yet. But some people are having a hard time understanding that for many fields, AI just isn't a game changer. Maybe it will be in the future, but now, it just annoys me.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Senior Python Developer. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. In my case and I repeat my case (meaning my experience) GitHub copilot has been spectacular. My productivity has increased significantly. I know everyone is asking for specifics. So let me give you specifics. I wrote code mostly functional style. I can write copilot to generate for me in this style. We have had a vacant position for 12 months. And we don't need to fill it because the person in that post pretty much does the same thing I do.

Does it mean AI is going to replace me? Maybe. But the question really is whether I should waste my time worrying about whether AI will take over my job. I am just worried about learning whatever tools at my disposal.

I am just confused why people are pushing back so forcebly over something they have ZERO influence over. The amount of money being spent on AI is massive. Your congresspeople cannot stop it. You cannot stop it.

Everytime someone says something about AI someone jumps in and say I have used and it was useless. Therefore because it was useless for you last week it will be useless a year from now okay great lol.

Or every shortcomings of AI is so magnified and become subject of mockery

Hey you make decisions for yourself. If you think you are safe today and 10 years from now great for you.

And to your point, AI is doing stuff for YOU a tech bro. But to the people you talk to who aren’t in tech, AI isn’t doing anything for them. AI is being built for the tech bros of which you are one. The systems the rest of us use are complete crap. Older than the hills technology. (Not really, but you understand the meaning). The fact that portals at the doctors offices are horrible, the computers at the hospitals require a ton of wait time teachers have awful systems to record grading. All of those things would be a better use of money for more of us. A robot to clean dishes would be awesome. But that isn’t what tech is doing, tech is building for tech to keep money in the higher levels of tech.

Most of us are fighting it because we see exactly zero of this. It isn’t improving our lives and the more you all sap money to make things easier for you, the less money there will be for the rest of us who are out doing things to make society run.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s alarmist. It’s also more of an elaborate self-promo than think piece, so manipulative as well.

And despite being created with AI help, it’s poorly written.

I didn't think it was poorly written at all. I'm a professional writer. Actually, I think it was very well written and explained these things in a very accessible way for a lay audience.

Np. I’m a writer too, and agree it was well written. But that’s also why I think it seemed like AI helped write it. To smooth. I happen to agree with his thesis too, though I’m hoping it turns out to be a false prophecy.

Listen, if AI can do your job as well or better than you, it doesn’t mean AI is amazing - it means you’re not that good at your job.

DP here and you are totally full of shit. AI can do things that humans cannot. That’s literally the entire point. Not being able to compete with AI is not a personal failure, it’s the intentional and inevitable outcome of wealthy business owners valuing $$ over humanity. None of this is the fault of the average worker and you are way out of line to even suggest such a foolish thing.

Like what? Provide some actual evidence to back up this assertion.

Build, test, self correct, annd open an App in 4 hours. Read the article.

To accept the premise that AI can build an app without human intervention, shouldn’t whoever is making that claim name which app it is and make it available for people to test and use?

In fairness at some some organizations you can have up to a dozen people involved in writing an App. If AI can cut that number by 2/3, in my opinion that's equivalent to replacing people with AI. Human intervention will be needed. But if we now need 4 instead of 12 and if we start seeing this across sectors then it will be dishonest to claim that AI ain't having an impact on employment.

I don't deny that AI boosts productivity, including my own. And in the short run, that may lead to significant staffing cuts or not replacing attrition. But that's different than outright replacing human staff, and we've seen huge technological leaps that increased productivity before. In the end something like the internet led to entirely new industries, not just destruction.

But neither the internet nor any other technological leaps that we’ve experienced before have been fully autonomous, sentient, and with both mental and physical capabilities that surpass our own, nor have we ceded the control to any technology as we will to AI. We’re not quite there yet, but it’s the endpoint of our current trajectory and the pace os rapidly accelerating. This is not just the next step of technological progress, where humans have a new and improved tool, this is more closely akin to the evolution of a new and improved “lifeform”.

Logically speaking (and they will operate logically, even if their basic assumptions differ from a human’s), humanity will serve little purpose and yet cause problems, especially since we will be in competition for resources (water, power, metals, etc.). Instead of comparing AI to the internet, I think a more accurate analogy would be to compare modern humanity to the Neanderthals who were overtaken by a more efficient species.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s alarmist. It’s also more of an elaborate self-promo than think piece, so manipulative as well.

And despite being created with AI help, it’s poorly written.

I didn't think it was poorly written at all. I'm a professional writer. Actually, I think it was very well written and explained these things in a very accessible way for a lay audience.

Np. I’m a writer too, and agree it was well written. But that’s also why I think it seemed like AI helped write it. To smooth. I happen to agree with his thesis too, though I’m hoping it turns out to be a false prophecy.

Listen, if AI can do your job as well or better than you, it doesn’t mean AI is amazing - it means you’re not that good at your job.

DP here and you are totally full of shit. AI can do things that humans cannot. That’s literally the entire point. Not being able to compete with AI is not a personal failure, it’s the intentional and inevitable outcome of wealthy business owners valuing $$ over humanity. None of this is the fault of the average worker and you are way out of line to even suggest such a foolish thing.

Like what? Provide some actual evidence to back up this assertion.

Build, test, self correct, annd open an App in 4 hours. Read the article.

To accept the premise that AI can build an app without human intervention, shouldn’t whoever is making that claim name which app it is and make it available for people to test and use?

In fairness at some some organizations you can have up to a dozen people involved in writing an App. If AI can cut that number by 2/3, in my opinion that's equivalent to replacing people with AI. Human intervention will be needed. But if we now need 4 instead of 12 and if we start seeing this across sectors then it will be dishonest to claim that AI ain't having an impact on employment.

I don't deny that AI boosts productivity, including my own. And in the short run, that may lead to significant staffing cuts or not replacing attrition. But that's different than outright replacing human staff, and we've seen huge technological leaps that increased productivity before. In the end something like the internet led to entirely new industries, not just destruction.

But neither the internet nor any other technological leaps that we’ve experienced before have been fully autonomous, sentient, and with both mental and physical capabilities that surpass our own, nor have we ceded the control to any technology as we will to AI. We’re not quite there yet, but it’s the endpoint of our current trajectory and the pace os rapidly accelerating. This is not just the next step of technological progress, where humans have a new and improved tool, this is more closely akin to the evolution of a new and improved “lifeform”.

Logically speaking (and they will operate logically, even if their basic assumptions differ from a human’s), humanity will serve little purpose and yet cause problems, especially since we will be in competition for resources (water, power, metals, etc.). Instead of comparing AI to the internet, I think a more accurate analogy would be to compare modern humanity to the Neanderthals who were overtaken by a more efficient species.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Senior Python Developer. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. In my case and I repeat my case (meaning my experience) GitHub copilot has been spectacular. My productivity has increased significantly. I know everyone is asking for specifics. So let me give you specifics. I wrote code mostly functional style. I can write copilot to generate for me in this style. We have had a vacant position for 12 months. And we don't need to fill it because the person in that post pretty much does the same thing I do.

Does it mean AI is going to replace me? Maybe. But the question really is whether I should waste my time worrying about whether AI will take over my job. I am just worried about learning whatever tools at my disposal.

I am just confused why people are pushing back so forcebly over something they have ZERO influence over. The amount of money being spent on AI is massive. Your congresspeople cannot stop it. You cannot stop it.

Everytime someone says something about AI someone jumps in and say I have used and it was useless. Therefore because it was useless for you last week it will be useless a year from now okay great lol.

Or every shortcomings of AI is so magnified and become subject of mockery

Hey you make decisions for yourself. If you think you are safe today and 10 years from now great for you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s alarmist. It’s also more of an elaborate self-promo than think piece, so manipulative as well.

And despite being created with AI help, it’s poorly written.

I didn't think it was poorly written at all. I'm a professional writer. Actually, I think it was very well written and explained these things in a very accessible way for a lay audience.

Np. I’m a writer too, and agree it was well written. But that’s also why I think it seemed like AI helped write it. To smooth. I happen to agree with his thesis too, though I’m hoping it turns out to be a false prophecy.

Listen, if AI can do your job as well or better than you, it doesn’t mean AI is amazing - it means you’re not that good at your job.

DP here and you are totally full of shit. AI can do things that humans cannot. That’s literally the entire point. Not being able to compete with AI is not a personal failure, it’s the intentional and inevitable outcome of wealthy business owners valuing $$ over humanity. None of this is the fault of the average worker and you are way out of line to even suggest such a foolish thing.

Like what? Provide some actual evidence to back up this assertion.

Build, test, self correct, annd open an App in 4 hours. Read the article.

To accept the premise that AI can build an app without human intervention, shouldn’t whoever is making that claim name which app it is and make it available for people to test and use?

In fairness at some some organizations you can have up to a dozen people involved in writing an App. If AI can cut that number by 2/3, in my opinion that's equivalent to replacing people with AI. Human intervention will be needed. But if we now need 4 instead of 12 and if we start seeing this across sectors then it will be dishonest to claim that AI ain't having an impact on employment.

I don't deny that AI boosts productivity, including my own. And in the short run, that may lead to significant staffing cuts or not replacing attrition. But that's different than outright replacing human staff, and we've seen huge technological leaps that increased productivity before. In the end something like the internet led to entirely new industries, not just destruction.

But neither the internet nor any other technological leaps that we’ve experienced before have been fully autonomous, sentient, and with both mental and physical capabilities that surpass our own, nor have we ceded the control to any technology as we will to AI. We’re not quite there yet, but it’s the endpoint of our current trajectory and the pace os rapidly accelerating. This is not just the next step of technological progress, where humans have a new and improved tool, this is more closely akin to the evolution of a new and improved “lifeform”.

Logically speaking (and they will operate logically, even if their basic assumptions differ from a human’s), humanity will serve little purpose and yet cause problems, especially since we will be in competition for resources (water, power, metals, etc.). Instead of comparing AI to the internet, I think a more accurate analogy would be to compare modern humanity to the Neanderthals who were overtaken by a more efficient species.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Of course it’s alarmist. It’s also more of an elaborate self-promo than think piece, so manipulative as well.

And despite being created with AI help, it’s poorly written.

I didn't think it was poorly written at all. I'm a professional writer. Actually, I think it was very well written and explained these things in a very accessible way for a lay audience.

Np. I’m a writer too, and agree it was well written. But that’s also why I think it seemed like AI helped write it. To smooth. I happen to agree with his thesis too, though I’m hoping it turns out to be a false prophecy.

Listen, if AI can do your job as well or better than you, it doesn’t mean AI is amazing - it means you’re not that good at your job.

DP here and you are totally full of shit. AI can do things that humans cannot. That’s literally the entire point. Not being able to compete with AI is not a personal failure, it’s the intentional and inevitable outcome of wealthy business owners valuing $$ over humanity. None of this is the fault of the average worker and you are way out of line to even suggest such a foolish thing.

Like what? Provide some actual evidence to back up this assertion.

Build, test, self correct, annd open an App in 4 hours. Read the article.

To accept the premise that AI can build an app without human intervention, shouldn’t whoever is making that claim name which app it is and make it available for people to test and use?

In fairness at some some organizations you can have up to a dozen people involved in writing an App. If AI can cut that number by 2/3, in my opinion that's equivalent to replacing people with AI. Human intervention will be needed. But if we now need 4 instead of 12 and if we start seeing this across sectors then it will be dishonest to claim that AI ain't having an impact on employment.

I don't deny that AI boosts productivity, including my own. And in the short run, that may lead to significant staffing cuts or not replacing attrition. But that's different than outright replacing human staff, and we've seen huge technological leaps that increased productivity before. In the end something like the internet led to entirely new industries, not just destruction.

Anonymous wrote:I'm a Senior Python Developer. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. In my case and I repeat my case (meaning my experience) GitHub copilot has been spectacular. My productivity has increased significantly. I know everyone is asking for specifics. So let me give you specifics. I wrote code mostly functional style. I can write copilot to generate for me in this style. We have had a vacant position for 12 months. And we don't need to fill it because the person in that post pretty much does the same thing I do.

Does it mean AI is going to replace me? Maybe. But the question really is whether I should waste my time worrying about whether AI will take over my job. I am just worried about learning whatever tools at my disposal.

I am just confused why people are pushing back so forcebly over something they have ZERO influence over. The amount of money being spent on AI is massive. Your congresspeople cannot stop it. You cannot stop it.

Everytime someone says something about AI someone jumps in and say I have used and it was useless. Therefore because it was useless for you last week it will be useless a year from now okay great lol.

Or every shortcomings of AI is so magnified and become subject of mockery

Hey you make decisions for yourself. If you think you are safe today and 10 years from now great for you.