| ▲ | NewsaHackO 3 days ago |
| Part of the issue is that I think you are underestimating the number of people not doing "advanced" programming. If it's around ~80-90%, then that's a lot of +1s for AI |
|
| ▲ | friendzis 2 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Wrong. 80% of code not being advanced is quite strictly not the same as 80% people not doing advanced programming. |
| |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 2 days ago | parent [-] | | I completely understand the difference, and I am standing by my statement that 80-90% of programmers are not doing advanced programming at all. |
|
|
| ▲ | whoknowsidont 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Why do you feel like I'm underestimating the # of people not doing advanced programming? |
| |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Theoretically, if AI can do 80-90% of programming jobs (the ones not in the "advanced" group), that would be an unequivocal +1 for AI. | | |
| ▲ | whoknowsidont 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I think you're crossing some threads here. | | |
| ▲ | NewsaHackO 3 days ago | parent [-] | | "It's not. And if your team is doing this you're not "advanced."
Lots of people are outing themselves these days about the complexity of their jobs, or lack thereof. Which is great! But it's not a +1 for AI, it's a -1 for them. "
Is you, right? | | |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [deleted] |
