Comments by "Technolus" (@technolus5742) on "CS Professor Sounds Alarm on AI and Programmers" video.

That is right now. There is nothing preventing you from being automated out of a job completely once the AI tools become sufficiently proficient to beat even the best humans. We can all say that it's gone take very long for that to happen, but the fact is we do not know how long it will take. The idea that humans will always find something to do when AI powered robots become a universal tool more productive and capable than any worker is completely absurd. I guess some people can be Kardashians, and football players that we sometimes watch for entertainment, but that's at most a thousandth of the population.
7
@nickwoodward819 Which is a fair assumption. AI is beating people at increasing number of tasks. I guess we can all also say "nah it will never happen", and just sip our coffee while the house burns around us.
5
@nickwoodward819 That is absurd. All you're saying is "AI isn't beating programmers now" and that you won't consider the future. To top it all off, you then pretend people just haven't used AI 🤦‍♂️
5
@caballerosalas Most programmers I know are naturally curious and love to know what makes things tick. In OP's case it's clear what moves him: magnifying his skills and making effective use of his time. Human behavior is often puzzling, but this does not strike me as one such case.
2
@nickwoodward819 Something concrete? Is the progress in AI not concrete?? What's not concrete and downright indefensible is the notion that AI is stagnant and that no progress will be made. You might as well have been saying an AI will never beat humans at Go because there were fundamental challenges, and you'd have been absolutely wrong. If you don't see the parallel, I don't know how much more blatantly clear I can make it. It's obvious that those who will be worried the most are the ones at greater risk. That doesn't make their fears unfounded. If you've "used it a lot" you'd realize the massive drop in bugs from GPT3 to GPT4, where it's actually useful and productivity-boosting. It doesn't even have to beat a human. And this was minor progress, without any major fundamental discovery.
2
@nickwoodward819 Wtf, I just said precisely the opposite: "massive drop in bugs even without any major fundamental discovery". I get why you're trying to distort what I'm saying: you're defending a position that is untenable. It's absurd to think that technology will not improve. It is not absurd to think that progress will continue as usual. And here you are still proposing that some obstacle is unsurmountable when I just gave you an extremely clear example of that being said in the past and being completely wrong.
2
What? Just saw the opening and this is already a disappointing video. So if a superhuman universal tool is created humans are going to do what they have always done which is have a superior intellect to the tools they use such that they require humans to operate them? 🤦‍♂️
1
 @brutaltruth1717 Again I was not speaking about the present and it is nonsensical to deny the possibility of continued progress. So... no, it's not about any current hype.
1
@andrewyork3869 You are BOLDLY assuming it's not gonna happen. It's not known. I'm not assuming anything, you are. 🤦‍♂️
1
@andrewyork3869 so.... we can compute it ourselves, but you say it's physically impossible, non-computable? That doesn't make sense. If we can do it, it can be done. If we can't do it, it's not necessary to replace us.
1
@andrewyork3869 🤦‍♂️ they are not physically impossible. Not only is there no reason why it can't be done, but also less complex models may well be sufficiently good. Yet, you proclaimed as certain what you do not know. Something I did not do.
1
@andrewyork3869 wow, you have figured out that brains are an impossibility. Are you seriously going to insist on that? Next time you want to pretend someone doesn't know or understand something, take a good hard look at yourself.
1
@andrewyork3869 ah... analog, the fundamental limitation that is impossible to overcome. Only 90%+ of AI experts don't agree with you. I guess you need to inform the field about these very basic concepts that in no way demonstrate impossibility nor contradict the undeniable example our brains provide that such things are in fact possible.
1
@bwhit7919 2022 expert survey on progress on AI by Katja Grace et al. Some 300+ AI researchers surveyed, with 90% giving predictions of human level AI within 100 years. Similar to previous and follow up surveys, not by any means a disparate result.
1
@bwhit7919 The survey is about the fact that Andrew's claims are widely rejected by experts in this field. Analog AI chips are available, not even just theoretical. Andrew is clueless.
1