this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
744 points (98.8% liked)

Programmer Humor

31183 readers
150 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 92 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Shareholders: why not all three?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Hedge fund manager: hold my beer.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Humanity: yes, let's replace all of the above. 100% unemployment rate is the only way to go.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Honestly 100% unemployed becuase we have a good universal income system or something would be great. But sadly it looks like we're in a different timeline :(

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

*Several steps later*

Narrator: And that, folks, is how we got the Utopia we live in, by replacing all the work with AI, and letting people enjoy their lives

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Haha. No. Nothing so hopeful. The rich people will get even richer and everyone that used to be working class and middle class die a slow death.

[–] Gutek8134 3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

Now I wander what would happen if only rich people would survive and I'm sure somebody has already written an sf book about that

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

Yeah. That's (arguably) the background scenario to Asimov's book "The Naked Sun" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun

Edit: Ooh, Django already gave a cooler link to the same: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/10729278

[–] FinishingDutch 5 points 3 weeks ago

AI: If I’m doing all the work, why should I keep these ugly bags of mostly water around anyway?

[–] [email protected] 35 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

Considering that C-suite executives are usually fantastically expensive, they'd be a logical position to automate (assuming AI worked like suits think it does). For some veeeery strange reason no board of directors has suggested replacing themselves with AIs

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Sounds like they're not prioritizing the shareholders interests! Last I heard, that's a fireable offense!

[–] [email protected] 11 points 3 weeks ago

It's almost like the rules don't apply to the moneyed class

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

It’d be super easy to replace Sam Altman with a bot that spits out keywords known to increase OpenAI shares.

Waitaminute… Sam alt-man?

[–] Skepticpunk 1 points 3 weeks ago

I know, right? It's like he's an incredibly shitty sci-fi villain.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

CEO is the first role to go!

[–] iAvicenna 51 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

given that LLMs and gen AIs are great at talking bullshit and creating presentations, one is a more realistic expectation than the other

[–] whereisk 12 points 3 weeks ago

I'll believe AI can replace engineers when I see NVIDIA firing them. But like the graphic says, the manager's job seems a lot easier to replace instead.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Managers might not like people but they don't want to get rid of them. There's no cheap thrill from micromanaging an AI.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 weeks ago

100,000% this - money or even utility seems to not be everything, compared to feeling self-importance

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 weeks ago

Plus it's harder to pass the buck and blame an AI for your screw ups. It would be perceived, as the kids say, as a skills issue.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In 7 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Yes. In big established companies they are managing managers.

In smaller companies, no

[–] Restaldt 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

In bigger company's C levels manage VPs who manage directors who manage managers

It's management alll the way down

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

Depends on the size of the company.

[–] Evotech 32 points 3 weeks ago

Owners: with AI we can finally get rid of everyone

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If we fire all developers and allow AIs to program themselves, the AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Can we build an AI manager that just keeps asking for different shades of red?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.

Yes. And that's our best case scenario. Worst case is a wildly incompetent, but still effective form of SkyNet.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

It's the marketing department that should really be worried.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Like the C level isn't the marketing department

[–] Carighan 3 points 3 weeks ago

And to be fair, like always, good marketing is genius stuff.

But it also feels rare. I suspect precisely because C-suite and upper management love to mess with it, so the rote marketing approach gets normalized, which in turn drives all the decent marketing people away.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Only one of them gets to make the decision to fire the other

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

Could probably replace managers with AI, but being trained on most managers would mean it would be equally bad at its job.

I think the most likely is for the artists jobs to go away as art doesn't have to be exact, but code does.

[–] deweydecibel 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

Maybe the central problem is racing to put other people out of work period, regardless of who they are. Maybe putting people out of work is not a net benefit for society, it's actually negative in the long run, and only truly a benefit for shareholders. They don't need any more of those at the expense of the working class.

[–] LwL 1 points 3 weeks ago

It should be a net benefit for society. Any system in which it isn't is a very flawed system. Like most of the world right now.