upvote
> but we really need to think about how the next group of people are going to learn the skills and nuance to applying them

That's what school is for. For the last 150 years we've automated a bunch of things, and then we send people to school to learn how those automations work, so they can make better automations.

Maybe law school will have to be a year longer. Or maybe some forward thinking firms will have new associates check the work of the LLM to gain that experience.

reply
> That's what school is for.

It's not.

We have advanced CNC mills and lathes, and apprentices still learn doing things manually to understand how the tools work, their failure modes, and more.

There are machines that mix drinks, but you still learn to bartend by doing it manually and making mistakes, not starting out with machines.

Same with writing. Same with software. Doing the "simple", automatable thing is how you learn how the system works.

School can't be the same. Plenty of people have tried, but being effective in the real world is different.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not.

reply
> There are machines that mix drinks, but you still learn to bartend by doing it manually and making mistakes, not starting out with machines.

You could say the same about grilling burgers. And yet, there are millions of burger cooks around the world grilling hundreds of millions of patties everyday with zero knowledge of how to grill burgers, at McDonald's and other bottom of the barrel fast food chains.

If not for the social aspect of being asked what you want for a drink and then watching it being made, bartenders would've already been replaced by mixer kiosks by now.

reply
> You could say the same about grilling burgers. And yet, there are millions of burger cooks around the world grilling hundreds of millions of patties everyday with zero knowledge of how to grill burgers, at McDonald's and other bottom of the barrel fast food chains.

If there are cooks successfully grilling burgers, I think they would have to have knowledge of how to grill burgers.

reply
In the future, I think AI lawyers will be arguing with AI lawyers for the most part.

Like how people use AI to write their resume and then the HR department uses AI to screen the resumes, the 2 AI's duke it out.

reply
Governments want to use machines to decide who to kill. As the Overton window shifts it seems natural that machines will adjudicate, too.
reply
Makes sense and money will still be valuable and can be used to lobby/influence the AI judges just like how people judges are now too
reply
I get the impression, that's all "too abstract" for people.

Will they understand the point when football gets taken over by AI, robot players and all?

Or won't they even stop at AI pastors and pray for the second coming of "Super J AI"?

reply
Still, school isn't quite the same as learning skills through work experience, is it?
reply
> Maybe law school will have to be a year longer.

Law school is already 3 years long in the US (after 4 years of undergrad), and most agree the second two are a complete waste of time. Other jurisdictions are different, but the US market is by far the largest.

reply
Who is "most"? Is this the same "most" that thinks college degrees are pointless and you should just go found a company (i.e. those that aren't paying attention and just want a credential)?
reply
It’s people who graduated law school. First year was brutal. Second and third were a breeze and kind of boring.

The first year is really teaching you the lingo and how to think like a lawyer. After that it’s almost entirely electives and rarely requires hard work (Fed Courts being the exception).

reply
True, but have you seen the state of education in the year of our Ai-ssiah, 2026?
reply
This is kind of a new complaint. Places like adp have being trying to automate away mundane hr tasks. Oracle and SAP have been trying to automate away the mundane admin tasks. Siemens does it for OT. There's a huge long tail of trying to solve this as if it were a problem in almost every field. This has been going on for decades and no one complains that we will lose expertise in these fields if the drudge work goes away. But bring in an AI... and everyone is suddenly concerned about corporate drudgery.
reply
Anyone who does not do the grunt work of learning how things work at a granular level will run into trouble when their agent suggests "let's re-write the firmware!" and the user says "sure, whatever that means", the model will get stuck or break something, and there will be no one around to understand what is going on.

With strict version history that may be okay, but hopefully their agent already thought of that for them too!

reply
Whenever you "automate away" things that are actually a part of you, you lose a part of yourself by definition.

When you automate physical movement, you atrophy. That implies ill health and helplessness/lack of resilience should your automata fail.

When you automate intellectual movement, the consequences are even more dire.

Most people lead a very immobile life already, in both aspects. They don't realize the consequences, if everybody did the same.

reply
I don't think toiling away at mundane tasks is the only way to build expertise in a field, or even a particularly good one. Today's farmers barely touch hand tools anymore and they're able to produce crops just fine.
reply
I've been having an identity crisis since generative AI started that is basically, "how am I going to learn anything with my ADHD brain when AI can do 10% of it immediately". That initial 10% would take me weeks or months to achieve on my own, and AI can do it right now, and that makes it even harder for me to bother. I hate it. I badly wish to do it myself because then I could achieve more than 10%, but now AI is right there and I just can't seem to justify the effort...
reply