I think that in the near future a super object oriented language will emerge that will let us create computer apps instead of programming them directly. Systems analysts, not programmers, will be able to define a computer app with the objects at a very high level and LLMs will create a JAVA like blob that can be run on multiple systems. The advantage is that the objects will be completely bug free and the app size is only limited by the systems resources. Bottom line, most app development will be done by systems analyst. The AI object programmers, a specialty, will help tweak the underlying function of each object.
Not yet, the IPOs have not started to go bunkers. We are not there yet, but eventually. Nothing goes up forever.
Here's the scenario I see: SpaceX, OpenAI and such go public; AI and tech stocks prices rise to unbelievable heights; We see news stories about someone getting close to becoming a 2x trillionaire; inflation rises; fed raises rates; stocks begin to fall; people panic sell and crash the market.
What I don't think people are taking into account is how wide spread AIs use will be. We are only seeing a very small use now. AI will eventully be coustomize for each country of the world, many of the machines we use and many new ways we can't think of right now. For that to happen we will need lots of data centers and power plants. The next 40 plus years will be bunkers in terms of the amout of productivity needed to roll out all the functions we want. It will be bigger than any recent roll out of new technology, definitely bigger than the web in size and function. No, we are not in a bubble, we are just getting started.
It's easy to say that he lost a large fortune but the guy is right. You can only make the best decision on the information you have at the time. You don't know the future. Apple is one success in many, many probably millions of failures. He got a good deal at the time. Of course, looking back it was a terrible deal but you can't predict the future with certainty. That is not how life works.
This is absolutely true. I too guaranty that the market will have a wild fall in the future. The problem is that we don't know when it will happen. The best we can do is pick the best investments we can, invest for the long term and hope for the best.
This doesn’t really surprise me. Most company leaders don’t have a detailed view of day to day work, they couldn’t step in and do every employee’s job. What they are good at is creating a clear story and direction that brings people together around a shared goal. That’s what Sam has done, especially in how he’s sold that vision to investors and raised billions. You could say the same about leaders like Elon Musk or Steve Jobs. It’s not necessarily a perfect system, but it’s often how companies grow and attract funding. No, they are not the perfect humans. It's just how business works.
I’ve been thinking that we’ll end up with specialized language models for different tasks, all connected by a router that picks the best one for each job. Put together, that could feel like a “super LLM”, not true AGI, but close enough that it might seem like it to most people. Because of that, I don’t think Mythos is a bluff.
I don’t think LLMs will ever be truly sentient, but they’ll likely appear that way. It won’t be real AGI, just something more powerful than any single human. Think of it as the oracle at Delphi. I'm not shocked that there's a better model coming. I'm sure there will be more powerful models to come after it too.
The junior engineer role isn’t going away. It’s just evolving. It’ll likely shift toward things like code analysis, reviewing work, and managing projects with AI tools. It’s similar to when we moved from hand-coded HTML to visual UI builders: the html code might not look perfect(it's actually crappy) , but it gets the job done. Over time, we’ll get better code management tools that will make code easier for everyone to understand. It sucks for the glut of coders that will need to adapt. But that's not new. How many web sites are written in perl, now? Did perl developers disappear? Some, but most moved on to other languages. That’s just how things progress.
Soon we'll have more programming projects popping up. It will now be financially profitable to create smaller projects that were losers before which will create new jobs. Or much more bigger project that could never be built before. So, AI won't take all coding jobs, they will evolve.
I turned a hobby into a career. I wouldn't recommend it. You lose the love for the hobby and the career doesn't match the hobby since you're mostly doing what other people need to do, not what you want.
True, focusing on salary will only guide you towards a job you will hate. If I had the opportunity to do it all again, I would work towards a caereer where I had more interaction with people rather than a computer screen. It's something you might want to think about.
I'm with him on the connection of heart disease and sugar. The amount of sugar we as a society ingest is excessive. It can't be healthy. But I can't get behind the idea of an industry wide statin conspiracy. There's a lot of here-say in this article. If all the studies are wrong then the for and against studies are wrong equally. How can we even trust anything?
This seems to me to be a case of "It's true because I say it's true"
The administration has said that they don't want regime change so that leaves just about anything as a win for the US. I see a big push to destroy the nuclear weapons material and capabilities. Once that's done, the US is out. It's a hard goal but it's the shortest way out.
I feel this is going to be a short war. The war will be settled long before the November elections. The way I see it, there's going to be a "deal" and the administration will call it a win, "THE BIGGEST WIN EVER!" But I'm an optimist at heart. Keep calm. Think hard before you make a move.
No, I don't see it. Current COBOL is running and meeting the needs. Rewriting the code would be a massive venture but even if Claude is able to map and rewrite the code there is 0 chance it can be trusted without major and expensive testing. Additionally, dealing with the new hardware that will be needed would be a major point of pain. Claude will help but why break something that's working. The better path will be to do a new needs analysis and then use Claude as one of the tools to make the transition. But the biggest block is getting management to pay for new code when the old code is not broken plus there is a chance of making things worse by doing the rewrite. Why would management take that risk?
Yup, my experience has been that vibe-coding is very time-consuming. It reminds me very much of how LLMs are great at creating mind-blowing images, but you get what you get. Once you decide that you need to modify the image you get, it becomes a time sink. You might be able to change it and get what you need, but there is no guarantee and it's a never ending task.
The same thing happens with code; you may get great results from your prompt, but trying to customize it will drive you nuts and you may never get what you want.
Maintenance is another hurdle. How do you maintain code you might not have the skills to maintain?
Vibe-coding may reduce software creation time, but it's not taking over software engineering. The SaaS business is going nowhere. Most people, by far, will continue to rely on someone else for their software needs. But be very aware that the software business will change. We are seeing that already.
True, it's the reason why most items aren't recycled. By far most items are buried or burnt rather than recycled. Our economic system is setup to minimize the manufacturing costs without considering disposal cost unless it's mandated. I don't think recycling will every be a real thing unless disposal costs become part of the overall price of manufacturing an item. Something that's mostly impossible unless it's mandated and people decide that trash is unacceptable or at least needs to be greatly minimized. Thinking about it, maybe at some point disposal cost will become so expensive that people won't buy new items unless sellers pay for trashing them.
I wrote a script that set an X countdown time to shutdown. The script gave a warning at five minutes and 1 minute until shutdown. Once I set it I could not stop it. It would load automatically at boot time. It worked rather well until I decided to stop using it. I don't have a solution for giving up. :)
Intereting that Taipei 101 is used. The 101 is reminiscent of an introductory college course. So Taipei 101 is just the beginning. There should be more challenging climbs to come in the future.
A new definition of object oriented software should be around the corner. Imagine having a few thousand objects that fit together but need AI tweeking for the system to work. Imagine people puting the blocks in place and have LLMs glue them together. We will have bug free software in no time. We will go from script type code to full custom OSes in days. It's bound to happen.
Computer Science education has always seem like a luxury to me. You go to college and get a very high view of the computer field but never enough to be able to get a job without additional training. That has changed CS graduates will have enough know how to be useful out of college. Their role now is to figure out how to turn spects into a usable system using AI.
My question now is: given that that there are only a limited number of types of system, why not have templates for the know how for most of these system? LLM can just fill in the blanks and have a working system in no time for most of the use cases.
The only thing I can think of that will happen is that we will have new creative systems for use cases we have never even thought about. I doubt AI will take over. Human creativity has no bounds so we will see an explosion of new ideas that only humans can solve not a capitulation to AI.
Keep in mind the idea that "Some people are profoundly broken." There are those you can help. There are also those who you will never be able to help. Know your limit. Know when to say enough and let them live with their choices. You can't fix everyone even if you wish you could.
Being familiar with tech is important, but being a 'tech head' is not. A CEO needs to be familiar with the product, marketing, sales, HR, and all the other parts of a company. If you are highly focused on one aspect, it can be disastrous for the business. Your job is to get the right people in the right positions and use their knowledge to make the right decisions. A CEO's superpower is making the right choice with the information available, which means you must get the right information from your staff.
I can see a tech head being very important at a technology-based startup. However, once you have a product you can sell to investors or users, you need to let go and determine how to survive and thrive as a company. Tech is just one more thing you need to know as a CEO, but it is by no means the most important.
Yes! All startups are created to solve a problem, regardless of the tools used. Apps are simply tools to solve human problems. Because humans will always have challenges to address, software will remain a vital tool. While AI makes writing software much easier. It's likely to lead to an explosion of new apps. Only those that fill a genuine need will survive. Your job is to identify these new problems and determine which apps to build.
Simple apps are a thing of the past. If an LLM can generate an app in a few sittings, it isn't a saleable product. However, people will still pay for a fully engineered application that solves a complex problem that AI cannot easily replicate.
Regarding copies, there is always room for more than one solution to the same need. Your challenge is to figure out how to stand out. A fundamental business hurdle, that has existed since the beginning.
Here's an idea that always bear's fruit. We humans love to do things as easy as possible. Write something that saves energy, time and is simple then people will pay for it.
You are the exception not the rule. Go to any tech shop and you the will see that the majority are in their 20's and 30's and mid 40's. Sure there are a few that are older but they are the minority by far.
There's a survivor bias, you see the older techs that are employed and people think "oh, there's no problem." But people don't take into account all the other techs that could not continue their career because they could not get a job as they got older.
The best thing to do is to be prepare to switch your career at some point. The tech industry is notoriously ageist so don't expect to retire working in the same type of job you have now.
Pick a place you want to work at and get any job you qualify to do and once there work your way into the job you want. 2 advantages, you get a paycheck and you prove that you are a good employee. Plus you can continue your search too.We are at a strange time in tech. Companies are being very cautious about who they hire and even if they want to hire anyone at all.