this post was submitted on 05 Feb 2024
188 points (83.1% liked)
Asklemmy
43943 readers
898 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
As someone with deep knowledge of the field, quite frankly, you should now that AI isn't going to replace programmers. Whoever says that is either selling a snake oil product or their expertise as a "futurologist".
Could you elaborate? I don't have a deep knowledge of the field, I only write rudimentary scripts to make some ports of my job easier, but from the few videos on the subject that I saw, and from the few times I asked AI to write a piece of code for me, I'd say I share the OP's worry. What would you say is something that humans add to programming that can't (and can never be) replaced by AI?
Generative neural networks are the latest tech bubble, and they'll only be decreasing in quality from this point on as the human-generated text used to train them becomes more difficult to access.
One cannot trust the output of an LLM, so any programming task of note is still going to require a developer for proofreading and bugfixing. And if you have to pay a developer anyway, why bother paying for chatgpt?
It's the same logic as Tesla's "self-driving" cars, if you need a human in the loop then it isn't really automation, just sparkling cruise control that isn't worth the price tag.
I'm really looking forward to the bubble popping this year.
This year? Bold prediction.
It can't reason. It can't write novel high quality, high complexity code. It can only parrot what other had said.
90% of code is something already solved elsewhere though.
AI doesn't know if the code copied is correct. It will stright up hallucinate non existing libraries just because they seem to look good at first glance.
Depends on how you set it. A RAG LLM verifies up against a set of sources, so that would be very unlikely in state of the art.
I think the need for programmers will always be there, but there might be a transition towards higher abstraction levels. This has actually always been happening: we started with much focus on assembly languages where we put in machine code, but nowadays a much less portion of programmers are involved in those and do stuff in python, java or whatever. It is not essential to know stuff about garbage collection when you are writing an application, because the compiler already does that for you.
Programmers are there to tell a computer what to do. That includes telling a computer how to construct its own commands accordingly. So, giving instructions to an AI is also programming.