If I grant you that cheap plentifull code will be a net boon to humanity, it's still normal to be unhappy that it's you specifically that will need to be ground-down in the cogs of progress. 5 years ago I also believed that the future could (and would!) be vastly better for many people, I just didn't know that betterment would be conditional on me losing the work I enjoy. In that sense LLM's are only a loss to me.
Many people feeling equanimous about this stuff are financially secure, later in their career or working at a manegerial level. That's fine, but at that point you're obviously not suffering the same pain as the author.
There is a lot of the latter happening so my comment remains relevant.
“I need to block abundance for all because I don’t feel safe with change”
is probably the most dangerous sentiment coursing through our civilization right now, and it’s coming now for me, and this is my rationalization from giving in to my baser instincts.
I’m imploring others to do the same
Whether it’s neighbors blocking housing, union bosses blocking port automation at the height of COVID, medical association’s controlling doctor quotas it’s the same sentiment, a fear of change.
I grant that a healthy distrust of the parties involved is fine but the reaction when given power is the same, veto: Stop everything now. Change is bad.
The "abundance" is not all positive valence. It is a flood of superficial good with an unmanaged ratio of negative byproduct mixed in.
Some of the "change" is not merely doing things a bit differently. The LLM flood is effectively attacking existing feedback and control mechanisms without any attempt to establish appropriate replacements.
I think there are several more dangerous sentiments coursing through civilization these days:
1. That people bear no moral responsibility to act in good faith, and the corollary that one can enjoy the fruits of production while externalizing all the liabilities.
2. That strategies like "move fast and break things" and "fake it until you make it" are universally applicable and appropriate, rather than only in the low-stakes entertainment/media/marketing fields where they flourished in recent decades.
3. That mere acquisition of capital gives one the right to perform N=1 experiments on global civilization, the economy, and the enviromment.
There are definitely transient upheavals as civilization adapts to the new norm and we can do much to reduce those effects.
But the end result is the same, more of everything made cheaper for the working class.
We are at the tail end of a 50 year productivity plateau and rising costs. We’re looking down the barrel of the first reduction in the QoL for our kids. I for one want to see what this tech has to offer.
If sentiment around people is that they don't want this (and that seems to be the case, based on many many articles like the above, as well as opinion surveys), then who are you to tell them what's good for them?
People don't seem to want an improverishment of mind and soul in exchange for vague promises of some sort of other abundance.
Why are they being forced to that dubious trade?
Because it's just the prisoner's dilemma in disguise. Most people don't really like the idea of AI, a lot of people especially outside of programming hate it, and I bet deep down inside a lot of programmers would prefer if AI never existed.
But it's easier to say that AI will bring great wonders because the alternative is acknowledging the reality - the diminishing returns of technology. And that brings a lot of cognitive dissonance if you're a programmer.
I’m talking housing, infrastructure, shipping, medical care, all critical services and sectors where fixing decades of lagging productivity will help the working class the most.
I mean, just look at the sequence of events you’re expecting here:
1. Ai companies achieve their stated goals
2. ???
3. Housing, infrastructure, medical care, etc get better for the working class
Are you the king of the underpants gnomes or something? How could it ever turn out this way? Why does anyone think it would? Am I taking crazy pills?
If those goals are fully eliminating need for human labor, then I agree it probably won't be good for most people. But that will probably take at least decades.
Anything short of that, and I think economy will be pretty similar to what it is now. You still need working class and need it to be productive, so you do need them to be reasonably happy, housed, healthy, and you need good infrastructure. With lower cost for all this, why wouldn't things improve, like all times throughout history?
No I’m just at the frontlines of this so called “replacement” and all I’m seeing is people doing more with less with no possibility of replacement. I have no idea what all this marketing pablum about TAM replacement is. All I’m seeing is growing businesses serving more people with less resources.
Could it be that CEO’s of struggling businesses are lying about why they’re doing the layoffs? Why are we suddenly believing them on this one issue?
… is a pretty grotesque straw man, but sure, fight it if you want.
Because he's arrived at the final stage of grief and is ready to move on.
Few years from now we'll be fighting to get a semi stable job that will pay like any other office job, and feel lucky we did.
Each individual who has ever worked as a programmer has been in the business of taking away several other people's jobs.
That's why people have little empathy for programmers specifically when their jobs are taken away now by AI.
No it hasn't. It's been about making bomb-ass simulations and cool games and stuff.
Even when software has been used for automation it's been done to eliminate boring labour, not creative work. Eliminating jobs like switchboard operators or coal stokers is a good thing because those were unenjoyable and even dangerous jobs that nobody wants to do.
Of course it did. Cars and motorcycles used to need to be taken to the mechanics all the time. Now they just run and run without issue, thanks to what you mention.
> All this stuff gave us more than we had before
Absolutely. Just like all automation. It takes away jobs, but increases production. That's why it's worth it in the end.
> Even when software has been used for automation it's been done to eliminate boring labour, not creative work.
Yes, and now AI is eliminating the boring labour of programmers. Will they come to terms with the fact that their jobs are unenjoyable and nobody actually wants to do them, like the coal stokers and switchboard operators?
But I agree with you that there are some outliers within programming that go beyond automating jobs and processes. Like the examples you give.
The whole thing was quite functional, and a few thousand lines total, and built a bit naively - the framework and the app were under 10k lines combined total.
Later I tried rebuilding it for Win32, and it ended up being more code (sans bespoke UI framework), and I'm not sure it was better, though I'm certain, the whole mass of code doing the thing was an order of magnitude more.
If I were to attempt building it in Electron, I could add 2-3 orders of magnitude to that easy, all for the same basic functionality.
All I'm saying is abstraction isn't really what it's cracked up to be.
I know things get worse before they get better - but some of us are at the point in our career where we likely won’t be around to see it get better again.
It seems in our profession there might be less satisfaction from work, but if it leaves me with more space to accomplish things in my own time, I think I prefer it.
Libraries are the last time americans agreed on basic principal that a public space with a public good is worth investing in everywhere.
Why is america so much against public services in general?
It comes in lots of flavors but it all is a facade against allowing black people benefits.
Bold of you to assume.
Those are unfortunate examples. The US doesn't do them very well compared to other OECD countries.
Are you thinking Southeast Asian countries, or European, or what?