Bit of a tautology, that. Presumably for AI to “replace programmers wholesale” it would need to produce human-quality code. Presumably human-quality code would not degrade anything because it’d be… you know, human-quality.
From what I can tell the degradation you’re talking about relates to natural language data. Stuff like physics simulations seems to be working fine to train models for other tasks, and presumably functional code is functional code. I don’t know if there is any specific analysis about code, though, I’ve only seen a couple of studies and then only as amplified by press.
I haven’t looked into it specifically because it really seems like a bit of a pointless hypothetical. Either AI can get better from the training data available or it can’t and then it is as good as it’s going to get unless the training methods themselves improve. At the moment it sure seems that there is a ton of research claiming both paths for growth and growth stalling that are both getting disproven by implementation almost faster than the analysis can be produced.
This argument mostly matters to investors itching to get ahead of a trend where they can fully automate a bunch of jobs and services and I’m more than happy to see them miss that mark and learn what the tech can do the hard way.
To be absolutely clear, AI is not “going to put everything else out of business”. Certainly LLMs won’t. Not even in programming.
It’s not that AI is going to successfully replace programmers - it is that large corporations want it to replace as much labor as possible, and they will use it to replace programmers because programmers will be the only people that can explain to them exactly why it won’t work. Everyone else will keep sayinng “go”, and, well, the nature of short-sighted profit seeking means they will go.
Outsourcing has often been a bad idea and the implementation deeply flawed - that didn’t stop anyone from outsourcing.
You should definitely look into the input/output thing. It’s absolutely real and applies to all generative AI and LLM operation, as far as I’m aware. The fact that you’re not familiar with it completely erodes your credibility on this topic.
Machine learning algorithms break when you turn them into an ouroborous and feed them their own outputs. Something about the statistically non-deterministic calculations and relatively insignificant artifacts they generate propagates and amplifies with each pass through the algorithm until the output is incomprehensible.
My “credibility on this topic” is of zero interest to me. I am not here to appeal to authority. I know you didn’t mean it like that, but man, it’s such a social media argument point to make it jumped right at me. For the record, it’s not that I haven’t heard about problems with training on AI-generated content (and on filtering out that content). It’s that I don’t need to flaunt my e-dick and will openly admit when I haven’t gone deep into an issue. I have not read the papers I’ve heard of and I have not specifically searched for more of them, so I’ll get back to you on that one if and when I do.
Anyway, that aside, you are presenting a bizarre scenario. You’re arguing that corporations will be demonstrably worse off by moving all coding to be machine-generated but they will do it anyway. Ad infinitum. Until there are no human coders left. At which point they will somehow keep doing it despite the fact that AI training would have entirely unraveled as a process by then.
Think you may have extrapolated a bit too far on that one? I think you may have extrapolated a bit too far on that one. Corpos can do a lot of dumb shit, but they tend to be very sensitive about stuff that costs them money. And even if that wasn’t the case, the insane volume of cheap skilled labor that would generate pretty much guarantees some competing upstart would replace them with the, in your sci-fi scenario, massively superior alternative.
FWIW, no, that’s not the same as outsourcing. Outsourcing hasn’t “often been a bad idea”. Having been on both sides of that conversation, it’s “a bad idea” when you have a home base with no incentive to help their outsourced peers and a superiority complex. There’s nothing inherently worse about an outsourced worker/developer. The thing that closes the gap on outsourcing cost/performance is, if anything, that over time outsourced workers get good and expect to get paid to match. I am pretty much okay with every part of that loop. Different pet peeve, though, we may want to avoid that rabbit hole.
It’s such a widespread and significant issue that it’s not really appropriate to make broad claims about the future of AI when you don’t understand one of the key limitations about current implementations of AI. This is the type of information that is critical for decision making about the usage of this technology.
To put it in your terms, it’s an extremely social media mindset to speak up on a wildly important topic that will impact everyone’s lives without learning about the core concepts of that topic.
I’m not making some infinite doomsday slippery slope scenario. It’s just a pattern. More corporations will try to replace more programmers with more half-assed implementations of AI, and the quality of all programming will suffer as a result. It’s not “all or nothing”, it’s just a piece of a greater whole.
Your point about the home base and superiority complex is exactly the type of issue I’m talking about - most corporations won’t implement AI well.
They will come up with ideas that sound great but can’t be accomplished with the current generation of tools, and a whole lot of people will lose their jobs for no good reason, and a whole lot of people will stop seeking those jobs for very good reason, and the vicious cycle will turn and turn.
You are saying a lot of things that sound good to you without much grounding. You claiming this is a “widespread and significant issue” is going to need some backing up, because I may be cautious about not claiming more knowledge than I have, but I know enough to tell you it’s not particularly well understood, nobody is in a position to predict the workarounds and it’s by no means the only major issue. The social media answer would be to go look it up, but it’s the weekend and I refuse to let you give me homework. I have better things to do today.
That’s the problem with being cautious about things. Not everybody has to. Not everybody knows they should or when. I don’t know if you’re dunning kruger incarnate or an expert talking down to me (pretty sure it’s not the second, though).
And I’m pretty sure of that because yeah, it is an infinite doomsday slippery slope scenario. That I happen to know well enough to not have to be cautious about not having done all the reading.
I mean, your original scenario is that. You’re sort of walking it back here where it’s just some effect, not the endgame. And because now you’re not saying “if AI actually replaces programmers wholesale” anymore the entire calculation is different. It goes back to my original point: What data will AI use to train? The same data they have now. Because it will NOT in fact replace programmers wholesale and the data is not fungible, so there still will be human-generated code to train on (and whatever the equivalent high enough quality hybrid or machine-generated code is that clears the bar).
AI has a problem with running out of (good) data to train on, but that only tells you there is a hard limit to the current processes, which we already knew. Whether current AI is as good as it’s going to get or there is a new major breaktrough in training or model design left to be discovered is anybody’s guess.
If there is one, then the counter gets reset and we will see how far that can take the technology, I suppose. If there is not, then we know how far we’ve taken it and we can see how far it’s growing and how quickly it’s plateauing. There is no reason to believe it will get worse, though.
Will companies leap into it too quickly? They already have. We’re talking about a thing that’s in the past. But the current iteration of the tech is incapable of removing programmers from the equation. At most it’s a more practical reference tool and a way to blast past trivial tasks. There is no doomsday loop to be had unless the landscape shifts signfiicantly, despite what AI shills have been trying to sell people. This is what pisses me off the most about this conversation, the critics are buying into the narrative of the shills aggressively in ways that don’t really hold up to scrutiny for either camp.
I mean, I’ll be honest, beyond the allegations of Dunning Kruger, I think this is actually just a grammatical mixup. I didn’t mean to write it the way you read it, and that may be my fault.
“If” AI replaces human programmers wholesale, new human code will stop being created
It starts with “if”. As in, it’s not a prediction of the future, it’s a response to the hypothetical future of AI being advocated for by techbros and corporations.
And “wholesale” doesn’t mean universally, it just means a lot.
And “new human code will stop being created” is true - I wasn’t saying all human code will stop being created. But AI replacing humans will stop humans from creating code. Many human projects will end, be reduced in scope, or won’t start, as AI is forced into projects that it isn’t yet ready for.
New human code will stop being created is a true - if ambiguous - statement. I do apologize for the ambiguity.
But given that AI does not perform well with retraining on AI output - and I’m sorry but I’d be happy to hear from anyone who can tell me that’s not a given - the ouroborous eats its own tail in more ways than one.
Less human code means less AI training. More AI creating code with less human input therefore leads to less developments and advancements in programming in general.
I appreciate that you didn’t mean to say what you said, but words mean things. I can only respond to what you say, not what you meant.
Especially here, where the difference entirely changes whether you’re right or not.
Because no, “less human code” doesn’t mean “less AI training”. It could mean a slowdown in how fast you can expand the training dataset, but again, old code doesn’t disappear just because you used it for training before. You don’t need a novel training dataset to train. The same data we have plus a little bit of new data is MORE training data, not less.
And less human code is absolutely not the same thing as “new human code will stop being created”. That’s not even a slip of the tongue, those are entirely different concepts.
There is a big difference between arguing that the pace of improvement will slow down (which is probably true even without any data scarcity) and saying that a lack of new human created code will bring AI training to a halt. That is flat out not a thing.
That this leads to “less developments and advancements in programming in general” is also a wild claim. How many brilliant programmers need to get replaced by AI before that’s true? Which fields are generating “developments and advancements in programming”? Are those fields being targeted by AI replacements? More or less than other fields? Does that come from academia or the private sector? Is the pace of development slowing down specifially in that area? Is AI generating “developments and advancements” of its own? Is it doing so faster or slower than human coders? Not at all?
People say a lot of stuff here. Again, on both sides of the aisle. If you know the answers to any of those questions you shouldn’t be arguing on the Internet, you should be investing in tech stock. Try to do something positive with the money after, too.
I’d say it’s more likely you’re just wildly extrapolating from relatively high level observations, though.
Hah, alright. I tried to bring this back to productive conversation, but we don’t share the same fundamentals on this topic, nor do we apparently share an understanding of grammatical conventions, or an understanding of how to productively address miscommunications. For example, one of my first responses started by clarifying that “it’s not that AI will successfully replace programmers”
I understand that the internet is so full of extreme, polarizing takes, and it’s hard to discuss nuance on here.
I’m not trying to give you homework for this conversation - we can absolutely wrap this up.
I just highly recommend that you look into the technological issues of AI training on AI output. If you do discover that I’m wrong, I absolutely do not ask you to return and educate me.
But believe it or not I would be extremely excited to learn I’m wrong, as overcoming that obstacle would be huge for the development of this technology.
AI gets real weird when you keep feeding it inputs that were once AI outputs. It’s a well known fact that the outputs severely degrade.
The whole point is if AI actually replaced programmers wholesale, new code would stop being created by humans.
Bit of a tautology, that. Presumably for AI to “replace programmers wholesale” it would need to produce human-quality code. Presumably human-quality code would not degrade anything because it’d be… you know, human-quality.
From what I can tell the degradation you’re talking about relates to natural language data. Stuff like physics simulations seems to be working fine to train models for other tasks, and presumably functional code is functional code. I don’t know if there is any specific analysis about code, though, I’ve only seen a couple of studies and then only as amplified by press.
I haven’t looked into it specifically because it really seems like a bit of a pointless hypothetical. Either AI can get better from the training data available or it can’t and then it is as good as it’s going to get unless the training methods themselves improve. At the moment it sure seems that there is a ton of research claiming both paths for growth and growth stalling that are both getting disproven by implementation almost faster than the analysis can be produced.
This argument mostly matters to investors itching to get ahead of a trend where they can fully automate a bunch of jobs and services and I’m more than happy to see them miss that mark and learn what the tech can do the hard way.
To be absolutely clear, AI is not “going to put everything else out of business”. Certainly LLMs won’t. Not even in programming.
It’s not that AI is going to successfully replace programmers - it is that large corporations want it to replace as much labor as possible, and they will use it to replace programmers because programmers will be the only people that can explain to them exactly why it won’t work. Everyone else will keep sayinng “go”, and, well, the nature of short-sighted profit seeking means they will go.
Outsourcing has often been a bad idea and the implementation deeply flawed - that didn’t stop anyone from outsourcing.
You should definitely look into the input/output thing. It’s absolutely real and applies to all generative AI and LLM operation, as far as I’m aware. The fact that you’re not familiar with it completely erodes your credibility on this topic.
Machine learning algorithms break when you turn them into an ouroborous and feed them their own outputs. Something about the statistically non-deterministic calculations and relatively insignificant artifacts they generate propagates and amplifies with each pass through the algorithm until the output is incomprehensible.
My “credibility on this topic” is of zero interest to me. I am not here to appeal to authority. I know you didn’t mean it like that, but man, it’s such a social media argument point to make it jumped right at me. For the record, it’s not that I haven’t heard about problems with training on AI-generated content (and on filtering out that content). It’s that I don’t need to flaunt my e-dick and will openly admit when I haven’t gone deep into an issue. I have not read the papers I’ve heard of and I have not specifically searched for more of them, so I’ll get back to you on that one if and when I do.
Anyway, that aside, you are presenting a bizarre scenario. You’re arguing that corporations will be demonstrably worse off by moving all coding to be machine-generated but they will do it anyway. Ad infinitum. Until there are no human coders left. At which point they will somehow keep doing it despite the fact that AI training would have entirely unraveled as a process by then.
Think you may have extrapolated a bit too far on that one? I think you may have extrapolated a bit too far on that one. Corpos can do a lot of dumb shit, but they tend to be very sensitive about stuff that costs them money. And even if that wasn’t the case, the insane volume of cheap skilled labor that would generate pretty much guarantees some competing upstart would replace them with the, in your sci-fi scenario, massively superior alternative.
FWIW, no, that’s not the same as outsourcing. Outsourcing hasn’t “often been a bad idea”. Having been on both sides of that conversation, it’s “a bad idea” when you have a home base with no incentive to help their outsourced peers and a superiority complex. There’s nothing inherently worse about an outsourced worker/developer. The thing that closes the gap on outsourcing cost/performance is, if anything, that over time outsourced workers get good and expect to get paid to match. I am pretty much okay with every part of that loop. Different pet peeve, though, we may want to avoid that rabbit hole.
It’s such a widespread and significant issue that it’s not really appropriate to make broad claims about the future of AI when you don’t understand one of the key limitations about current implementations of AI. This is the type of information that is critical for decision making about the usage of this technology.
To put it in your terms, it’s an extremely social media mindset to speak up on a wildly important topic that will impact everyone’s lives without learning about the core concepts of that topic.
I’m not making some infinite doomsday slippery slope scenario. It’s just a pattern. More corporations will try to replace more programmers with more half-assed implementations of AI, and the quality of all programming will suffer as a result. It’s not “all or nothing”, it’s just a piece of a greater whole.
Your point about the home base and superiority complex is exactly the type of issue I’m talking about - most corporations won’t implement AI well.
They will come up with ideas that sound great but can’t be accomplished with the current generation of tools, and a whole lot of people will lose their jobs for no good reason, and a whole lot of people will stop seeking those jobs for very good reason, and the vicious cycle will turn and turn.
You are saying a lot of things that sound good to you without much grounding. You claiming this is a “widespread and significant issue” is going to need some backing up, because I may be cautious about not claiming more knowledge than I have, but I know enough to tell you it’s not particularly well understood, nobody is in a position to predict the workarounds and it’s by no means the only major issue. The social media answer would be to go look it up, but it’s the weekend and I refuse to let you give me homework. I have better things to do today.
That’s the problem with being cautious about things. Not everybody has to. Not everybody knows they should or when. I don’t know if you’re dunning kruger incarnate or an expert talking down to me (pretty sure it’s not the second, though).
And I’m pretty sure of that because yeah, it is an infinite doomsday slippery slope scenario. That I happen to know well enough to not have to be cautious about not having done all the reading.
I mean, your original scenario is that. You’re sort of walking it back here where it’s just some effect, not the endgame. And because now you’re not saying “if AI actually replaces programmers wholesale” anymore the entire calculation is different. It goes back to my original point: What data will AI use to train? The same data they have now. Because it will NOT in fact replace programmers wholesale and the data is not fungible, so there still will be human-generated code to train on (and whatever the equivalent high enough quality hybrid or machine-generated code is that clears the bar).
AI has a problem with running out of (good) data to train on, but that only tells you there is a hard limit to the current processes, which we already knew. Whether current AI is as good as it’s going to get or there is a new major breaktrough in training or model design left to be discovered is anybody’s guess.
If there is one, then the counter gets reset and we will see how far that can take the technology, I suppose. If there is not, then we know how far we’ve taken it and we can see how far it’s growing and how quickly it’s plateauing. There is no reason to believe it will get worse, though.
Will companies leap into it too quickly? They already have. We’re talking about a thing that’s in the past. But the current iteration of the tech is incapable of removing programmers from the equation. At most it’s a more practical reference tool and a way to blast past trivial tasks. There is no doomsday loop to be had unless the landscape shifts signfiicantly, despite what AI shills have been trying to sell people. This is what pisses me off the most about this conversation, the critics are buying into the narrative of the shills aggressively in ways that don’t really hold up to scrutiny for either camp.
I mean, I’ll be honest, beyond the allegations of Dunning Kruger, I think this is actually just a grammatical mixup. I didn’t mean to write it the way you read it, and that may be my fault.
“If” AI replaces human programmers wholesale, new human code will stop being created
It starts with “if”. As in, it’s not a prediction of the future, it’s a response to the hypothetical future of AI being advocated for by techbros and corporations.
And “wholesale” doesn’t mean universally, it just means a lot.
And “new human code will stop being created” is true - I wasn’t saying all human code will stop being created. But AI replacing humans will stop humans from creating code. Many human projects will end, be reduced in scope, or won’t start, as AI is forced into projects that it isn’t yet ready for.
New human code will stop being created is a true - if ambiguous - statement. I do apologize for the ambiguity.
But given that AI does not perform well with retraining on AI output - and I’m sorry but I’d be happy to hear from anyone who can tell me that’s not a given - the ouroborous eats its own tail in more ways than one.
Less human code means less AI training. More AI creating code with less human input therefore leads to less developments and advancements in programming in general.
I appreciate that you didn’t mean to say what you said, but words mean things. I can only respond to what you say, not what you meant.
Especially here, where the difference entirely changes whether you’re right or not.
Because no, “less human code” doesn’t mean “less AI training”. It could mean a slowdown in how fast you can expand the training dataset, but again, old code doesn’t disappear just because you used it for training before. You don’t need a novel training dataset to train. The same data we have plus a little bit of new data is MORE training data, not less.
And less human code is absolutely not the same thing as “new human code will stop being created”. That’s not even a slip of the tongue, those are entirely different concepts.
There is a big difference between arguing that the pace of improvement will slow down (which is probably true even without any data scarcity) and saying that a lack of new human created code will bring AI training to a halt. That is flat out not a thing.
That this leads to “less developments and advancements in programming in general” is also a wild claim. How many brilliant programmers need to get replaced by AI before that’s true? Which fields are generating “developments and advancements in programming”? Are those fields being targeted by AI replacements? More or less than other fields? Does that come from academia or the private sector? Is the pace of development slowing down specifially in that area? Is AI generating “developments and advancements” of its own? Is it doing so faster or slower than human coders? Not at all?
People say a lot of stuff here. Again, on both sides of the aisle. If you know the answers to any of those questions you shouldn’t be arguing on the Internet, you should be investing in tech stock. Try to do something positive with the money after, too.
I’d say it’s more likely you’re just wildly extrapolating from relatively high level observations, though.
Hah, alright. I tried to bring this back to productive conversation, but we don’t share the same fundamentals on this topic, nor do we apparently share an understanding of grammatical conventions, or an understanding of how to productively address miscommunications. For example, one of my first responses started by clarifying that “it’s not that AI will successfully replace programmers”
I understand that the internet is so full of extreme, polarizing takes, and it’s hard to discuss nuance on here.
I’m not trying to give you homework for this conversation - we can absolutely wrap this up.
I just highly recommend that you look into the technological issues of AI training on AI output. If you do discover that I’m wrong, I absolutely do not ask you to return and educate me.
But believe it or not I would be extremely excited to learn I’m wrong, as overcoming that obstacle would be huge for the development of this technology.
deleted by creator