Post #1958778
2026-04-27 10:56 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@Lexam@lemmy.world 2026-04-27 11:23
Why didn’t they just ask ChatGPT to summarize it for them? /s
-
@d00ery@lemmy.world 2026-04-27 11:42
Lol, capitalism & CEO rule 1: only think about the next quarter profits, fuck the future, I’ve already made my money
-
@nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2026-04-27 12:41
My grandpa said using a calculator would spoil my math abilities. Actually it spoiled my arithmetic tricks. Instead I had more time to learn things like vector calculus.
-
@rozodru@piefed.world 2026-04-27 13:21
It’s already happening. I’m looking to “retire” this year (which essentially means I’m just quitting this bullshit, I can’t deal with it anymore.) I’ve been doing consultation/contracting dev work for the past several years and about 2 years ago I pivoted from that to essentially doing code review for AI slop for my various clients. It’s always the same song and dance of “this is why your new fancy AI produced crap doesn’t scale, this is why there are exploits, this is how you fix it with real devs, yadda yadda yadda”. I was naive and hoped I could make a difference by hoping these startups and small tech houses would get the picture and pivot back to utilizing actual devs. hire people back and what have you. But none of them have. So I’m getting paid and wasting my time talking to CTOs and upper managers and I might as well be talking to a brick wall. they’re all going to continue to ride this AI train until the wheels come off and even when the carriage is missing all the wheels they’ll try to push it along down the tracks. it’s hopeless. I’ve given up. I know it’s not something unemployed or under-employed devs want to hear but this is the conclusion I’ve come to within the past couple months. I hate this industry now. absolutely hate it. I might just focus on FOSS stuff, contribute to random projects or start maintaining some and call it a day. but the passion for coding and anything tech related has been sucked dry from me thanks to LLM’s and AI.
-
@technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2026-04-27 15:38
Also this: What’s beginning to emerge is that the problem was maybe easier than expected
-
@soratoyuki@piefed.social 2026-04-27 12:55
Not just that the next generation of experts will hypothetically be employed as baristas, but I don't think people take the risk of deskilling enough. The next generation of would-be experts won't be as good at whatever because they've learned to rely on AI. We risk effectively transferring valuable skills from humans to Musk- or Altman-owned chatbots. That should horrify everyone.
-
@cecilkorik@piefed.ca 2026-04-27 14:07
Also there's a "thousand monkeys at a thousand typewriters" effect going on, but what people neglect to notice is that each of the thousand AI monkeys is (either out of necessity or mere curiosity) currently being supervised and edited by a brilliant mathematician who would otherwise be working on their own proofs and discoveries right now. And sure enough, one team might actually come up with a genuine shakespeare-quality draft eventually, but even if that is the case, you also have to consider the opportunity cost of having 1,000 brilliant mathematicians focusing on reviewing monkey-typewriter output instead of each working on their own groundbreaking work much more slowly and "traditionally". The work being delegated to AI isn't replacing human work, it's overriding it. I don't know if all this AI work is a completely net-unproductive and worthless endeavour or not, but I do know we're not doing an honest accounting and AI companies have a huge incentive to cook the books to make it look way more productive than it actually is.
-
@MangoCats@feddit.it 2026-04-27 17:19
> t when you start to analyze its output it has a lot of holes that require someone trained in the art to fix. I don't disagree, but that's not really what the article is saying. The article is saying: GPT found a novel approach resulting in a solution where none existed before, presented it poorly - though still technically correctly - and they polished the output to make it more human friendly. I have used the new LLMs for various things over the past few months, the one constant: for anything longer than a paragraph of output, you can get better results by reading the output (yourself) and feeding back "notes" for things to improve. >What happens 10 or 15 years from now, when all the current crop of experts are retired and all the experts who could have curated the AI output had to spend all that time as baristas instead because the AI took all of their entry level jobs? Presumably, that next crop of experts will be curating AI output for 10-15 years before the current crop expires. Hopefully they learn what they're doing in that time.