antihipocrat

Is the time to develop production code being reduced if they stop slinging code over the wall and only use AI code as inspiration?

Is the time to develop production code reduced if AI gen code needs work and the senior engineer can't get a clear answer from the junior as to why design decisions were made? Is the junior actually learning anything except how to vibe their way out of it with ever more complex prompts?

Is any of this actually improving productivity? I'd love to know from experts in the industry here as my workplace is really pushing hard on AI everything but we're not a software company

Could say that capital has been searching for the next great productivity tech for a while now.

AI presents this opportunity, and is the only idea available that could actually work. It's no wonder that capital has flooded in to support it.

Thing is, if it succeeds at the pace and extent that the optimists are predicting then the economic disruption will be massive.. and if it doesn't succeed, and there is no other alternative available for long term productivity improvement, then the economic disruption will also be massive.

There's a third category too, users looking for security weakness and probing the system with a spectrum of inputs. The response to these inputs can reveal a lot about how the backend is designed.

And what happens to the 1% where this fails? At the moment the responsibility is on the person. If I incorrectly book my flight for date X, and I receive the itinerary and realise I chose the wrong month - then damn, I made a mistake and will have to rectify.

An LLM could organise flights with a lower error rate, however, when it goes wrong what is the recourse? I imagine it's anger and a self-promise never to use AI for this again.

*If you're saying that the AI just supplies suggestions then maybe it's useful. Though wouldn't people still be double checking everything anyway? Not sure how much effort this actually saves?

Not just music, models are trained on all types of art forms that have been created by humans across every medium and businesses are now choosing to use content from AI rather than pay an artist.

Breakout success can still be achieved from humans who create brand new art styles that can't yet be replicated by an AI. These artists will reap the rewards until all of these works are added to the subsequent AI training models.

The other one being the Australian Aboriginal population?

I wonder whether we hold LLMs to a different standard because we have a long term reinforced expectation for a computer to produce an exact result?

One of my first teachers said to me that a computer won't ever output anything wrong, it will produce a result according to the instructions it was given.

LLMs do follow this principle as well, it's just that when we are assessing the quality of output we are incorrectly comparing it to the deterministic alternative, and this isn't really a valid comparison.

The average person can be fooled into supporting anything most of the time. The list of bad wars Americans have supported (at least initially) is longer than the good ones.

Normative language used as shorthand for current consensus for whether the conflict was justified given the likely alternative outcomes for not engaging.

A lot of philosophy is testable and the inspiration for scientific enquiry. Philosophy contains logic as a major area of study and the results of this work are core tenets in mathematics which enables the ability to conduct rigorous science.

Science itself is the product of philosophical enquiry.

Service delivery can be improved by advances in productivity for both public and private sectors equally - The difference is that the private sector is constantly focusing on reducing costs of the most expensive business areas. For most businesses this is operations/service delivery, and reducing these costs allows the business to extract higher profit and gain the flexibility to compete on price. Employees who deliver cost out effectively are also rewarded. There is risk but also high reward.

Government organisations don't have the same profit incentive as they aren't in a competitive market, nor are there any personal incentives for executives to achieve these efficiencies. Government does eventually implement productivity improvement however it lags behind the private sector, with investment in productivity only occuring once risk has effectively been eliminated.

I've worked in both sectors, and people working in each sector are equally frustrated with inefficiency and seek to improve things. The problem with government isn't really the people nor the agency nor the sector, it's that the organisation and it's people only gain rewards by improving the status of the politician running the agency.

Nowadays saying that $X billion is being spent is more important than whether it successfully achieved the outcome. The effect of this is that one politician can announce $X billion to more efficiently achieve the same outcome as another politician announcing $2X billion at half the productivity and the second politician sounds like (or can easily be spun to sound like) they are achieving more/ care more than the first. The end result is massive expenditure on very little.

Thanks, you're right and I was totally wrong. I'd delete my comment if I could

Legal tender does not have to be a mandatory means of exchange.

Using the wrong tool for the job required isn't lazy but it may be dangerous, inefficient and ultimately more expensive.

CTEs really tripped me up when I started using them professionally. My mental model was that they result in reusable objects in memory and thus could be used to improve performance as well as composition.

After discovering the truth, it was interesting to find out that almost everyone I knew who wasn't a snr db engineer shared the same incorrect assumption.

Also, content creators now have their own ads within their content itself. I feel no need to give Google any money.

You're not alone. In my experience the senior executive are enamoured by the possibility of halving headcount. The engineers reporting honestly about the limitations of connecting it to core systems (or using it to generate complex code running on core systems) are at risk of being perceived as blocking progress. So everyone keeps quiet, tries to find a quick and safe use case for the tech to present to management, and make sure that they aren't involved in any project that will be the big one to fail spectacularly and bring it all crashing down.

Some possibilities

- Bank operators responding to queries have no idea why a decision was made

- Banks rely on algorithms to determine credit worthiness, these are run centrally so a bank manager at a branch may say positive things but the system generates a report independently.

- The algorithms also can raise flags for other risks, such as anti money laundering. The bank will not disclose anything if a flag has been raised as a regulatory requirement.

if (voter == 'left')

then insert(billionaire[0])

else if (voter == 'right')

then insert(billionaire[1])

else insert(billionaire[2])

let billionaire = ['Elon Musk', 'Bill Gates', 'Mark Zuckerberg']

Cis white male covers a very broad spectrum of people from very different economic, ethnic and social backgrounds.

Labelling an entire race (noting caveat above) of people as problematic is not a traditional progressive worldview and in my opinion that this view is being promoted in modern progressive politics has contributed to a large proportion of traditional progressives feeling politically stranded.

The bot does the trivial things well, still need a brain to actually apply these trivial things to solve complex problems - much like a calculator

A leak has already happened:

https://www.engadget.com/2018-02-06-grammarly-patches-seriou...

Loans for phones are very common in the developing world.

Rather than a luxury, they've become an expensive interest bearing necessity for billions of human beings.

Is the CTO aware that the information being checked could be leaked to a competitor?

If I listened to the naysayers back in the day I would have never entered the tech industry (offshoring etc). Yes, that does somewhat prove you're point given that those predictions were cost driven.

Having used AI extensively I don't feel my future is at risk at all, my work is enhanced not replaced.

AI brings similar risks - they can leak internal information, they can be tricked into performing prohibited tasks (with catastrophic effects if this is connected to core systems), they could be accused of actions that are discriminatory (biased training sets are very common).

Sure, if a business deploys it to perform tasks that are inherently low risk e.g. no client interface, no core system connection and low error impact, then the human performing these tasks is going to be replaced.

Your performance on these tests would be equivalent to the highest performing model, and you would be much cheaper.

Investment in human talent augmented by AI is the future.

I'd argue the web browser falls into that category as well.

"Dear [applicant name], thank you for sending us your application.

We have decided not to progress your application further.

While making our decision we've noted your extensive experience at [previous company] and feel that your skillsets are highly valuable in the industry and hope you find success in your job search soon."

I actually received that from a major tech company, unfilled mail merge aliases included.

Child mortality is much higher in worse conditions as well, and having more children the increases chances that some survive.

Sounds like Singapore.. without the transition to a more democratic model. Living standards there indicate it's been net positive for quite a long time.