• iAvicenna@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • whereisk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months 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.

  • palordrolap@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

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

  • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

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

    • MajorHavoc@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months 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.

    • Carighan Maconar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months 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.

  • stanka@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months 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@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    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.

    • mindbleach@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      5 months ago

      Ideally, nobody should have to work.

      The problem is that labor-saving technology is never permitted to save labor. We make those displaced laborers go do other shit.

    • LwL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months 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.