It makes engineers a hell of a lot more efficient and opens up software to a whole new class of people. There is plenty of data to back this up.
Based on that alone it’s worth quite a lot.
Based on that alone it’s worth quite a lot.
Is there a shortage of React apps out there that companies are desperate for?
I'm not having a go at you--this is a genuine inquiry.
How many average people are feeling like they're missing some software that they're able to prompt into existence?
I think if anything, the last few years have revealed the opposite, that there's a large/huge surplus of people in the greater software business at large that don't meet the demand when money isn't cheap.
I think anyone in the "average" range of skill looking for a job can attest to the difficulties in finding a new/any job.
IMO if coding models get good enough to replace devs, we will see an explosion of software before it flattens out.
tech always shortage because its a kitchen sink problem, corporation want to reduce headcount so it saves money in the long run
I have a friend in IT who never knew how to code but is now saving a lot of time every month with just basic scripts.
We're several years in now, and have lots of A:B comparisons to study across orgs that allowed and prohibited AI assistants. Is one of those groups running away with massive productivity gains?
Because I don't think anybody's noticed that yet. We see layoffs that makes sense on their own after a boom, and cut across AI-friendly and -unfriendly orgs. But we don't seem to see anybody suddenly breaking out with 2x or 5x or 10x productivity gains on actual deliverables. In contrast, the enshittening just seems to be continuing as it has for years and the pace of new products and features is holding steady. No?
You mean... two years in? Where was the internet 2 years into it?
You may be intending to refer to 1971 (about two years after the creation of ARPANet) but really the more accurate comparison would be to 1995 (about two years since ISPs started offering SLIP/PPP dialup to the general public for $50/month or less).
And I think the comparison to 1995, the year of the Netscape IPO and URLs starting to appear in commercials and on packaging for consumer products, is apt: LLMs have been a research technology for a while, it’s their availability to the general public that’s new in the last couple of years. Yet while the scale of hype is comparable, the products aren’t: LLMs still don’t anything remotely like what their boosters claim, and have done nothing to justify the insane amounts of money being poured into them. With the Internet, however, there were already plenty of retailers starting to make real money doing electronic commerce by 1995, not just by providing infrastructure and related services.
It’s worth really paying attention to Ed Zitron’s arguments here: The numbers in the real world just don’t support the continued amount of investment in LLMs. They’re a perfectly fine area of advanced research but they’re not a product, much less a world-changing one, and they won’t be any time soon due to their inherent limitations.
My grandfather didn’t care about these and you don’t care about LLMs, we get it
> They’re a perfectly fine area of advanced research but they’re not a product
lol come on man
I think it's pretty fair to say that they have close to doubled my productivity as a programmer. My girlfriend uses ChatGPT daily for her work, which is not "tech" at all. It's fair to be skeptical of exactly how far they can go but a claim like this is pretty wild.
It remains to be seen how viable this casual usage actually is once this money dries up and you actually need to pay per prompt. We'll just have to see where the pricing will eventually settle, before that we're all just speculating.
But these are people that wanted to be in programming in the first place.
This "my mom can now code and got a job because of LLMs" myth, does this creature really exist in the wild?