hnthrow0287345

They'll only get to claim a hollow victory because AGI is impossible to rigorously define. None of the regulating bodies of consumer products will be able to define it better than academics. They'll use marketing to make those claims and there will be legal battles that keep it in a gray area.

They'll go for that because it's easier than actually inventing the 'sci-fi' AGI, shareholders keep making money, and it keeps them getting paid to keep going. If any of them actually do succeed, then that little deception will be peanuts.

It's not the only thing, but it's a big one

Cheaper labor, for sure

>Are those excess returns not work? What are they?

Normally you'd get a low percentage fee instead of getting all of the returns unless you got that capital for free (inheritance?), so yes, you are a worker compared to the person controlling the capital.

>In writing tasks Qwens hallucinations and bullshitting are much easier to spot because it doesn't have the sleek vocabulary and wordsmithing skills to disguise its ignorance.

Can't wait until we just remove the language from the LLMs for accuracy and efficiency

"read code" and "debug code" will still be valuable and one of the ways you learn that is "write code". You might have gotten people who can only write code from cheap contracting places, but the companies choosing to go that route were shooting themselves in the foot with that decision before AI came along.

Even from offshore contractors, I still haven't run into anyone who can only write code except for someone just starting out.

>But does it actually matter?

Probably not, because most of us are boring. Most of us don't have stalkers. Most of us don't have government clearances. Most of us aren't politically adjacent, significant, or know someone who is. Most of us are not wealthy. Most of us will not be a target by the relatively small pool of humans who could actually do anything with that data.

I might have a few chains where I do connect to someone important (degrees of connection to Kevin Bacon), but that isn't directly useful here.

The point is it's still private information and it must be protected, if only out of common sense or respect for your fellow humans. We don't need damages to defend this point.

>What kind of 'useful'?

Someone says it's useful to them. If you get a consensus where >50% find it useful, then it's probably useful.

>I think Sam Altman is an asshole and I prefer to spend my money elsewhere.

That's why he chose the OpenAI logo

If anything though, this shows that at least tech driven hype bubbles can stay around way longer than we think if we are looking at it from a product POV.

This just means short sellers might have a hard time sinking a hype-category stock with reasoned research because the irrationality keeps it afloat.

This is why the 'craft' should be left to open source for most commercial software. The business reality just doesn't care for it.

Only when you have a PR problem does the business switch back to signalling quality, like Microsoft, although it remains to be seen if they still have the quality part. Most of the craftspeople get to say 'told you so' but also it looks like a sinking ship to them. Once the PR problem is gone, it's back to shipping at the expense of quality.

This cycle conflicts with the idea of a craft, which is that you should do it that way all/most of the time. The business will stop caring about quality long enough that your skills will erode, making it a bad mix. Trying to practice a craft where you aren't in control of this cycle is corrosive to the spirit.

All we can really do is point and laugh. Boards don't listen to workers, and I bet most boards will be okay with a little spending oopsie-daisy because it was 'try shit and see if it works out'

I doubt it, but I've seen dumber stuff like laying off people because they think AI will replace them

PE has a bad reputation, maybe for LBOs, maybe for buying up doctors' offices and retirement homes, and hospitals and making them objectively worse in terms of patient care.

My family doctor underwent that along with several of her local peers and got out from under it and started her own practice. I'm obviously not her only patient, so yes, heightening stress on caregivers by demanding more work to drive profits higher is justifiable of a bad reputation.

Leaving things like medical care, food, water, shelter at the mercy of for-profit dynamics leaves the possibility open that those services stop being provided because it is unprofitable at the expense of the population.

America is deciding it likes profit over its population.

That's probably the goal

You get nothing being the go-to person vs. the person that just does the job

That's heinous. Their firm should stay away from sports car brands.

This would be more meaningful if, perhaps, we had to swear an oath to it before being able to practice. And practitioners would be treated more seriously if everyone knew we swore that oath. And the legal utility as accountability and defense would also be useful.

Of course people are going to ignore it if there's no force behind it.

I just do business apps and websites, and it pays the bills, but none of it is really interesting since a lot of it involves recurring patterns and simply fixing other peoples' past mistakes (and future people will probably fix mine). I give a shit only because doing that means less work and annoyances and not getting fired, but I still only give a shit 8 hours a day, usually less.

All this advice runs into time constraints and luck, which means you can get unlucky trying 2, 3, 4, 5, etc. things and you're not good at any of them while you still have bills to pay.

It's also an accessibility problem as some careers are gated by degrees (physician) or capital (farming). Doing the sample work (shadowing a physician, hired farm worker) to see if you like it has a risk of not giving a real picture of the actual work. If that happens, you have to rely on tenacity to stick it out.

Some people need to be in the deeper parts of the job before their brain kicks on and starts enjoying it (just being a hired laborer at a farm vs. owning and running the farm) because they don't have any 'ownership' when it's just a job.

All this to say that the quick advice like the OP is technically right, but it has about the same nuance and considerations of reality as clubbing baby seals.

My guess is this was brought up but getting the product out there was more important to the business so it got ignored.

Now that it's a problem for them, they get to hide behind an "oops sorry, let's fix the really obvious thing now", almost like taking "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" to malicious levels.

This jives with CRUD software in general, where people are not usually rewarded for preventing future issues and instead rewarded for waiting until it's a visible problem and then fixing it.

>They probably shouldn't have ignored the public sentiment.

Company goes under and they just start something else.

There's no real consequences. This is a club, not a market.

More like developers who give quality away for free then are left wondering why businesses who make millions still end up squeezing the life out of them.

Fast food might be the right approach if it's a business that prefers speed to maintainability, and they might move towards that with LLMs. I wish more developers would go with it instead of fight it. It's not like it's a personal failure you can't convince the business to slow down and prefer quality.

The quality of the craft can live on in open source and personal projects.

"They clearly stare into the black void to make themselves feel better!"

If they can't at least imagine the golden path themselves and write it down, they shouldn't be in charge of the product because they will be unlikely to understand any other in depth conversations about it. And I have no idea how they'd be having coherent conversations with anyone above them either. They're also unlikely to use AI well or not identify bad-out-of-the-gate solutions. It is of course different if they're just gathering opinions or want a PoC or exploratory work done, but those aren't requirements to me.

Developers are unlikely only doing development these days. There's ops and support to do as well, so more back and forth is less time doing those things and development.

We need to meet in the middle about requirements otherwise developers will end up doing someone else's job for them.

Firing people is problematic. I'd be okay with it if the economy wasn't utter trash. It's way better to do the work upfront and prefer false negatives over false positives.

Even better would be if we had a well-respected credential, so both employees and employers can both avoid these long interview loops. I'd much rather get hazed once in a big way than tons of little hazings over a life time.

It doesn't. It's just a low-end skill filter that got really popular. It could have easily been replaced by other tests like is this word a palindrome.

I have seen precisely zero consequences for these people because they usually leave after not too long and go somewhere else, sometimes for higher pay. The slower folks end up getting the worse code and no raises in exchange for comradery.

But also I have no idea how that situation arises unless the slower folks are just auto-approving PRs. You kind of did that to yourself if you let the new person get away with it.

This stuff helps prevent the bubble popping, which means when they want the bubble to pop, they stop announcing these deals, giving them a great lever of profit.

Crazy how they can just lie to this extent without consequences. Or still get paid millions for making bad deals, meaning incompetence

Same for most executives and upper management being unable to relate because companies stopped promoting within and no longer reward loyalty and seniority. They see you as something that could be dismissed instead of someone that might run or heavily influence the company one day.

That doesn't really work if you have as many frequent layoffs as Meta has had as everyone will be thinking about it constantly, along with the collapse of one of its major endeavors (Metaverse) and people realizing that the cash bonfire could have been in their pockets instead.