Ask ChatGPT to solve unsolved mathematical and computer science problems or any basic international mathematical olympiad (IMO) questions and it falls before the starting line and will give incoherent answers.
Even if it moves an inch past the line, it cannot transparently explain as to how it got there in the first place.
In reality, we don't have artificial intelligence and until we create a machine that can be called intelligent we don't even know for sure if it's possible at all. In the foreseeable future human programmers will be needed, when the day comes that machines archive general intelligence all bets are off anyway.
This question seems to me a bit like asking what field should I specialize in if I believe we'll make first contact with an alien race in the next 10 years. Who knows?
or alternatively just ask it to solve simple addition. It can't reliably add large numbers together either. As good as it is at producing plausibly sounding language it has virtually no facilities to reason or learn axiomatic rules.
That's fine. It can always use a computer if need be.
> As good as it is at producing plausibly sounding language it has virtually no facilities to reason or learn axiomatic rules.
I've never been hired on the basis of learning axiomatic rules.
>I've never been hired on the basis of learning axiomatic rules.
Nope but you'd be fired really quickly if you couldn't communicate or follow some. I don't think you were trained to not throw coffee cups off the table like a cat via reinforcement, B.F. Skinner style. Which is really how we have to interact with these models (i.e. prompt 'engineering'). For humans to put artificial systems in task of really complex systems there needs to be a way to interact at a high level reliably and put boundaries (that is, rules) in place. As of today we largely have those outside of the models when necessary.
most software engineers today are employed to solve unsolved mathematical and computer science problems or IMO-style problems.