Guy who buys programmers and sells AI thinks he can sell more AI and stop buying programmers.
This is up there with Uber pretending self driving cars will make them rich.
this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)
Technology
59601 readers
3436 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I mean... self driving cars probably will. Just not as soon as they think. My guess, at least another decade.
Maybe, or maybe like harnessing fusion it will always be “just a few more years away!”
Not until a self driving car can safely handle all manner of edge cases thrown at it, and I don’t see that happening any time soon. The cars would need to be able to recognize situations that may not be explicitly programmed into it, and figure out a safe way to deal with it.
Their accident rate continues to decrease and things like quorum sensing and platooning are going to push them to be better than humans. You're never going to have a perfect system that never has accidents, but if you're substantially better than humans in accidents per mile driven and you're dramatically improving throughput and reducing traffic through V2X, it's going to make sense to fully transition.
I imagine some east Asian countries will be the first to transition and then the rest of the world will begrudgingly accept it once the advantages become clear and the traditional car driving zealots die off.
The robot taxi from Total Recall came to mind while reading your reply. Our future is almost assuredly dystopian.
As someone said on this thread: as soon as they can convince legislators, even if they are murder machines, capital will go for it.
Borrowing from my favorite movie: "it's just a glitch".
I doubt it. The liability would be far too great. Ambulance chasing lawyers would salivate at the chance to represent the families of pedestrians struck and killed by buggy self driving cars. Those capitalists don't want endless years of class action cases tying up their profits.
When was the last time a corporation got anything other than a slap on the wrist and a small donation to the government just so they could keep doing what they're doing?
Like Boeing. As much as I hate people saying dumb shit about a company they don't know much of anything about, Boeing is the epitome of what you said. A company getting a small slap on the wrist for gross negligence in the name of profit. Especially because of all the goodies they develope for the US Federal Government. And since they are a world wide company our government isn't the only one. They know they reside in a place of power because they fill a hole in an industry that basically has to be filled. And people want to try to bankrupt them with some weird ideas about voting with their dollar. But that's nonsense.
People don't understand about how they build planes not to sell but to lease. How these types of leases keep their customers paying out the nose for an asset they don't own, and responsible for the maintenance of that asset until it's time to upgrade. They cornered the market on enshitification long before the likes of Microsoft and Google, and they have mastered the art of it.
Tesla or Uber or whoever wish they could do what Boeing has been doing for decades. People have this rose tinted glasses view of what Boeing "used to be" when it was "run by engineers" etc. That's hilarious to me. Back in the day they hedged their bets in a race to the bottom to develop a two engined plane that would catastrophically fail if it falls out of the sky so they could skirt worldwide federal regulations that required planes to have more than two engines. This added to upkeep and fuel costs making it untenable and creating air travel that was incredibly expensive. And their engineers managed it, so they played the long game, basically allowing them to develop planes that were more fuel efficient and cost effective to maintenance meaning their customers could afford to buy more of them by providing air travel opportunities to more people.
You know what we got from that? Shittier seating arrangements, poorly manufactured planes, and baggage fees out the whazoo in addition to ever rising ticket prices for air travel.
Alternatively measures could be put in place to eliminate certain edge cases. You can see similar concepts in places with separate infrastructure for things like busses or HOV lanes. Places you could still ostensibly allow "regular" vehicles to travel but limit/eliminate pedestrians or merging.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Plus, as soon as the cars can drive themselves people will stop needing Uber in many cases.
No parking? Just tell your car to go park on a street 10 blocks away.
Drunk? Car drives itself while you sleep.
Going to the airport? Car drops you off and returns home. Car also picks you up when you are back.
This is combined with the fact that people will do more disgusting things in an Uber without the driver there. If you have ever driven for Uber, you know that 10% of people are trying to eat or drink in the car. They are going to spill and it's going to end up like the back of a bus.
load more comments
(1 replies)
there will be a massive building in like india with many thousand of atrociously paid workers donning VR goggles who spend their long hours constantly Quantum Leap finding themselves in traumatizing last second emergency situations that the AI gives up on. Instantly they slam on the brakes as hard as they can. They drink tea. there's suicide netting everywhere. they were the lowest bidder this quarter.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just like all humans can do right now, right?
I never see any humans on the rode staring at their phone and driving like shit.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Self driving taxis are definitely happening, but the people getting rich in a gold rush are the people selling shovels.
Uber has no structural advantage because their unique value proposition is the army of cheap drivers.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I just want to remind everyone that capital won't wait until AI is "as good" as humans, just when it's minimally viable.
They didn't wait for self-checkout to be as good as a cashier; They didn't wait for chat-bots to be as good as human support; and they won't wait for AI to be as good as programmers.
And then we should all charge outrageous hourly rates to fix the AI generated code.
You better fucking believe it.
AIs are going to be the new outsource, only cheaper than outsourcing and probably less confusing for us to fix
They'll try the opposite. It's what the movie producers did try the wrists. They gave them AI generated junk and told them to fix it. It was basically rewriting the whole thing but because now it was "just touching up all existing script" it was half price.
load more comments
(3 replies)
They won't, and they'll suffer because of it and want to immediately hire back programmers (who can actually do problem solving for difficult issues). We've already seen this happen with customer service reps - some companies have resumed hiring customer service reps because they realized AI isn't able to do their jobs.
And because all the theft and malfunctions, the nearby supermarkets replaced the self checkout by normal cashiers again.
If it's AI doing all the work, the responsibility goes to the remaining humans. They'll be interesting lawsuits even there's the inevitable bug that the AI itself can't figure out.
Unexpected item in bagging are? I think you meant free item in bagging area.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Uh huh.
"Coding" was never the source of value, and people shouldn’t get overly attached to it. Problem solving is the core skill. The discipline and precision demanded by traditional programming will remain valuable transferable attributes, but they won’t be a barrier to entry. - John Carmack
This right here.
Problem is not coding. Anybody can learn that with a couple of well focused courses.
I'd love to see an AI find the cause of a catastrophic crash of a machine that isn't caused by a software bug.
Catching up on what Carmack's been up to for the last decade has revived the fan in me. I love that 2 years after leaving Oculus to focus on AGI, this is all the hype he's willing to put out there.
Fucking lol.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
They've been saying this kind of bullshit since the early 90s. Employers hate programmers because they are expensive employees with ideas of their own. The half-dozen elite lizard people running the world really don't like that kind of thing.
Unfortunately, I don't think any job is truly safe forever. For myriad reasons. Of course there will always be a need for programmers, engineers, designers, testers, and many other human-performed jobs. However, that will be a rapidly changing landscape and the number of positions will be reduced as much as the owning class can get away with. We currently have large teams of people creating digital content, websites, apps, etc. Those teams will get smaller and smaller as AI can do more and more of the tedious / repetitive / well-solved stuff.
And by that time, processors and open source AI are good enough that any noob can ask his phone to generate a new app from scratch. You'd only need big corpo for cloud storage and then only when distributed systems written by AI don't work.
load more comments
(2 replies)
when will ai replace ceos?
This. ⬆️ 😆
Mark Zuckerberg is not a robot ?
No!!! They're useful because uhhmm uuhhhh uhmm uhhhbbh dndusfjduehrhrh
load more comments
(1 replies)
Pfffffht.
I hope this helps people understand that you don't get to be CEO by being smart or working hard. It's all influence and gossip all the way up.
In fact, being stupid is probably a benefit.
Yep if I had that kind of money and surrounded by like minded people I'd agree. Unfortunately I'm cursed with a rational mind 🙃🙃🙃
Can AI do proper debugging and troubleshooting? That's when I'll start to get worried
load more comments
(1 replies)
"Guy who was fed a pay-to-win degree at a nepotism practicing school with a silver spoon shares fantasy, to his fan base that own large publications, about replacing hard working and intelligent employees with machines he is unable to comprehend the most basic features of"
You did a great summary honestly
I admit that I work faster with AI help and if people get more stuff done in less time there might be less billable hours in the future for us. But AI did not replace me, a 10 times cheaper dude from India did.
Most companies can't even give decent requirements for humans to understand and implement. An AI will just write any old stuff it thinks they want and they won't have any way to really know if it's right etc.
They would have more luck trying to create an AI that takes whimsical ideas and turns them into quantified requirements with acceptance criteria. Once they can do that they may stand a chance of replacing developers, but it's gonna take far more than the simpleton code generators they have at the moment which at best are like bad SO answers you copy and paste then refactor.
This isn't even factoring in automation testers who are programmers, build engineers, devops etc. Can't wait for companies to cry even more about cloud costs when some AI is just lobbing everything into lambdas 😂
The thing that I see most is that AI is dumb and can’t do it yet so we don’t need to worry about this.
To me, it’s not about whether it can or not. If the people in charge think it can, they’ll stop hiring. There is a lot of waste in some big companies so they might not realize it’s not working right away.
Source: I work for a big company that doesn’t do things efficiently.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I don't get how it's not that AI would help programmers build way better things. if it can actually replace a programmer I think it's probably just as capable of replacing a CEO. I bet it's a better use case to replace CEO
load more comments
(2 replies)
Until you ask it to do something never done before and it has a meltdown.
view more: next ›