trention

Is there a single number in that story that contradicts what I have written?

Unfortunately for that line of reasoning, the hourly rate according to the BLS has also been pretty much constant in real $.

Brynjolfsson and McAfee made a simular argument a decade ago - we will use automation to replace rather than augment human labor, the result being a local optimum far from the global one (that's in terms of results, the dystopian disempowerment of humanity is another story.

Not having agency is not the issue here.

Usage of the model can (and will) be automated. Also, unlike you, the model scales. This is a qualitative difference in the output produced. You are left only with the superficial similarity of the input process.

>ML revolutionized translation a long time ago and the demand and pay for translators went down.

This is incorrect.

Translators employed:

2005 - 29240

2021 - 52170

Yearly salary:

2005 - 38300

2021 - 52170

Source - BLS (https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm)

Employment growth was ~79% on a US population growth of ~13.5%.

38300 2005 $ equal 52854 2021$.

So pretty much demand for translators exploded while real wages stayed flat.

>post-scarcity for all kinds of intellectual work

Unfortunately, all intellectuals also need to eat, bathe and clothe - areas where no "post-scarcity" is on the horizon (with climate change, both food and water may become less abundant). So an economic system will need to be invented.

On the basis that the "machine" is not a human and there is nothing that necessitates allowing neural networks to do all the things humans are permitted to do.

>the general scientific consensus

I would advise you to read up on the history of the advice ADA has been giving throughout the years (spoiler alert: they were wrong about fats and complex carbohydrates) before putting your money in that basket that this is the "general scientific consensus". But this is a topic I don't want (or need) to argue about.

>how did you arrive to conclusion that eating chicken is better than eating lentils, beans, etc

I haven't made such a claim (here "better" would be solely in terms of emissions). What was implied was that the delta of the emissions from switching from beef to chicken/fish is (far) larger than the delta from switching from them to veganism (it's important to note that per grams of protein, dairy is comparable in emmissions to non-beef meats - so really veganism (or veganism + eggs) is required).

Also, this claim "we know that eating animals is not required to be healthy at any stage of life" is most likely false at the margin.

>Anyone who cares about the environment including ecosystem breakdown and climate change will go meatless one way or another.

I "care about the environment" and I will not "go meatless". I have stopped eating beef entirely and have switched to chicken and fish, with the occasional pork steak. 1 pound of beef has the carbon footprint of ~8 pounds of chicken. Especially in the States, the best thing to do is switch your meats.

>So what?

This is exactly the type of reaction I expect from modern leftists when they are proven factually wrong and logically inconsistent. Thanks for being an epitome.

>You're also skipping over the "systematically persecuted" part

Homophobia is a crime in the EU. So much for not being "systematically persecuted". Homophobes fit that description far better than homosexuals today.

>Homophobes aren't a protected class because they aren't systematically persecuted for something outside their control.

You cannot assert that if you cannot demonstrate that homophobia is 0% genetic (I am using "genetic" loosely here). In reality, like most complex human traits, it's partially genetic and partially environmental, hence it is outside the control of at least a subset of those exhibiting it.

One thing I've noticed in all the debates around freedom of speech in the last decade is that literally nobody favors actual free speech. When freedom of speech touches some of the things you consider "sacred" or when it can make a noticeable dent in your wallet, people usually scream for restrictions.

It will be better to stop pretending that debates about free speech and hate speech are about principles and not just group signalling and power demonstrations. This will take the moral non-arguments (that are currently mostly advanced by those that call for direct government censorship, although historically that hasn't been the case) out of the equation.

This is a truism that every senior engineer understands. There is no way to get below 10% coding unless you move into people management/product. At this point, you are no longer a SWE (except by title, maybe).

Well, you will lose but I basically don't believe your claim is anything more than hyperbolic bullshit as no one who is working as a SWE is actually spending only 1% of their time programming as per your initial comment.

>engineering as defined as "doing the best you can with tools you have"

This is not a definition of engineering anyone sane holds. It's so broad it can be used to define a floor cleaner as an engineer (or, if you want higher tech involved, a floor cleaner with a roomba).

This is not logic, this is travesty.

Really? How much money are you willing to put on the claim "LLMs are going to produce >80% of newly written production code in 5 years"? If it's less than your yearly salary, then even you don't believe your own assertion.

It's basically a way in which already delusional people are further deluding themselves that writing a part of a sentence while interacting with a black box is engineering.

It knows what combinations of pixels correspond to the metadata having "giraffe" in it. Nothing more.

The sad part is you don't even realize how unhinged in a quasi david koresh style you sound. The observation that kurzwelians have substituted AI (as a deux ex machina) for god is still spot on, maybe more than ever.

Singulatarians really are funny until it becomes tragic.

Presumably, if the ethics in question includes not leaving entire classes of skilled workers worldwide to hang like the States left its autoworkers hanging after the 70s - yes.

It's absolutely logically consistent to allow humans to do X while forbidding AI to do X.

So, in essence you want a language that will tell the AI what to do? A programming language, if I may say so?

It's almost if that natural language thing is highly ambiguous which is why we needed to create a new grammar to give precise instructions for machine-driven processes.

>"excels other large language models"

It's also good that its announcement excels at having a grammatically correct subtitle.

This reads like a religious pamphlet and not an actual argument.

The fact that you can imagine something will happen doesn't mean it will happen.

Who says the AI will "know the intention of all the code, all the data models, know how users use the application intimately"? Are you aware that language models do in fact have token input/output limitations that will not go away? Are you aware that there is such a thing as diminishing returns when it comes to improvements due to increased number of parameters/training set size that are already evident? Are you aware that the training set of codex pretty much includes all available public code, so it will be impossible to scale it by a factor > 3 in the next several years at least?

Your assertions are full of wild assumptions backed by nothing.

As for photography, the fact is there has been no job apocalypse because your "friends and family" are "pumping out photos". And the point of your initial post, even if it was implicit, was "you are going to be unemployed in 5 years". This will have an impact on your dev flow and will be used by managers to try to reduce salary premiums for software engineering but your wild assumptions stated with so much confidence may never happen.

P.S: At this point, I find Intellicode actually slows me down, that's why it's permanently turned off. Current copilot will at most save me 2-3% of my working time each week if I am coding in a language it can actually do something in (it's worse than useless for Scala).

>will become as common as "photographers"

There were still ~60% as many employed photographers in 2021 than in 2000 with higher real wages (data from BLS - https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm).

For camera operators, the employment is flat, again with rising real wages.

>imagine paired programming with natural language interacting with an AI

Mostly it will get in the way. AI "programmers" are only good if they are able to generate correct code from spec/pseudocode and in first 1-3 number of tries (otherwise it will be faster to write it yourself).

It's interesting how every time I come across an AI-related article, it's always "imagine how much it will improve in 2 years".

This may or may not be the case but I get the feeling that most ITs haven't heard of diminishing returns.

So far no-code and copilot have put exactly 0 developers out of business.

Teams of what?