Can anyone give me some estimates instead of defending your jobs as coders?
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -Upton Sinclair
People tell stories about employees at big companies whose entire job is to send a small report to someone once a week.
Even in cases like that, it's illogical to fear AI, because if it really was so simple to automate, it would've been done already.
Either the storytellers are clueless about the true nature of the job, or else there are defenses against redundancy that aren't obvious.
This hasn't been my experience. There is a TON of low hanging fruit for automating workloads which exist in almost every large company. While not all automations are easy, there's no shortage of easy work in automation. Almost every financial organization I've worked at has had some amount of manual processing of overnight batch jobs.
What you mean by "experience" is unclear to me.
I agree with you insofar as everyone with even a little experience at a large company knows there are a lot of apparently low hanging fruit possibilities for automation.
But do you mean you have seen things that seem simple to automate, or have you tried to do so and found out what happens?
There is a lot going on below the surface.
Extremely basic and low hanging fruit is all over the place.
The most technically trivial change has a litany of obstacles involving people.
Off the top of my head:
1) Finding out a process exists
2) Finding out who knows about a process
3) Being able to communicate with such a person
4) Motivating them or other stakeholders to make a change
5) Making the new process independent of specific employees
"That don't make no sense!"
If you believe in the potential of chatbots to replace programmers, then the salary of every programmer depends on them not not understanding it.
Here's why they seem like a waste of time to me, even for writing bland emails and comments; what say you?
How cheap could it cost would be calculated based on the smallest cost of input parameters required with the smallest code output while minimizing how many time something needs to be reprompted.
No one knows the minimum prompting required.
It's like asking how much does it cost to recreate google (a popular upwork fake project). However much money you want to pour into it but you are still not getting google.
and based on kiinda conservative assumptions, ai coders start being competitive in 2028
That's true only for the HR department. Because code and experience wise, someone that has been programming for 5 years isn't that much experienced than someone fresh from college. In 5 years you barely have time to get to know your editor inside out, and start to have a grasp on your first tech stack.
I consider someone to be an experienced developer one that has seen a couple frameworks and hype cycles come and go. Let's say 10 years of experience.
Also, AI has 0% productivity. Being able to churn out code without being able to reason about it in the grand scheme of things makes it worse than even a non-programmer in problem solving ability. AI has no problem-solving ability. Ignoring this issue makes the whole thing moot, because it assumes that GPT is actually AGI.
sure you draw the line where you feel comfortable, but in the US job market, people get the senior title in 3-7 years, its just a statement of fact rather than opinion.