• TheKrunkedJuan@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 months ago

    As someone scripting a lot for my department in the tech industry, yea AI and scripts have a lot of potential to reduce labor. However, given how chaotic this industry is, there will still need to be humans to take into account the variables that scripts and AI haven’t been trained on (or are otherwise hard to predict). I know the managers don’t wanna spend their time on these issues, as there’s plenty more for them to deal with. When there’s true AGI, that may be a different scenario, but time will tell.

    Currently, we need to have some people in each department overseeing the automations of their area. This stuff mostly kills the super redundant data entry tasks that make me feel cross eyed by the end of my shift. I don’t wanna be the embodiment of vlookup between pdfs and type the same number 4+ times.

    • misspacific@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 months ago

      exactly, this will eliminate some jobs, but anyone who’s asked an LLM to fix code longer than 400 lines knows it often hurts more than it helps.

      which is why it is best used as a tool to debug code, or write boilerplate functions.

      • hansl@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You’ll get blindsided real quick. AIs are just getting better. OpenAI are already saying they moved past GPT for their next models. It’s not 5 years before it can fix code longer than 400 lines, and not 20 before it can digest a specification and spout a working software. Said software might not be optimized or pretty, but those are things people can work separately. Where you needed 20 software engineers, you’ll need 10, then 5, then 1-2.

        You have more in common with the guy getting replaced today than you care to admit in your comment.

        Edit: not sure why I’m getting downvoted instead of having a discussion, but good luck to you all in your careers.

        • misspacific@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 months ago

          i didn’t downvote you, regardless internet points don’t matter.

          you’re not wrong, and i largely agree with what you’ve said, because i didn’t actually say a lot of the things your comment assumes.

          the most efficient way i can describe what i mean is this:

          LLMs (this is NOT AI) can, and will, replace more and more of us. however, there will never, ever be a time where there will be no human overseeing it because we design software for humans (generally), not for machines. this requires integral human knowledge, assumptions, intuition, etc.

          • hansl@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            LLMs (this is NOT AI)

            I disagree. When I was studying AI at college 20+ years ago we were also talking about expert systems which are glorified if/else chains. Most experts in the field agree that those systems can also be considered AI (not ML though).

            You may be thinking of GAI or Universal AI which is different. I am a believer in the singularity (that a machine will be as creative and conscious as a human), but that’s a matter of opinion.

            I didn’t downvote you

            I was using “you” more towards the people downvoting me, not you directly. You can see the accounts who downvoted/upvoted, btw.

            Edit: and I assumed the implication of your comment was that “people who code are safe”, which is a stretch I was answering to. Your comment was ambiguous either way.