I half agree. But two points: 1) if you can formalize your instructions ... then future instances can be fully automated. 2) You are still probably having the AI perform many sub-tasks. AI-skeptics regularly fall into this god-of-the-gaps trap. You aren't wrong that human-augmented AI isn't 100% AI ... but it still is AI-augmentation, and again, that sets the stage for point 1 - to enable later future full automation on long enough timecycles.

▲

skydhash 6 hours ago | parent [-]

> if you can formalize your instructions

Isn't that...code?

▲

deaux 5 hours ago | parent [-]

No. Think of all engineering disciplines that aren't software. Those all depend on human-language formal instructions.

▲

okanat 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Formal instructions paired by tables are almost as rigid as code. Btw normal engineering disciplines have a lot of strict math and formulas. Neither electrical nor mechanical engineering runs on purely instructions.

▲

ThrowawayR2 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The non-software engineering disciplines I'm thinking of rely on blueprints, schematics, diagrams, HDLs, and tables much more than human language formal instructions. More so than software engineering.

	▲	deaux 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Disagree, they rely on both equally, not much more on one of them. Consider the process of actually building a large structure with only a set of such diagrams. The diagrams primarily cover nouns (what, where, using what), whereas the human language formal instructions cover the verbs (how, why, when). You can't build anything with only one of the two. And sure, the human language formal instructions often appear inside tables or diagrams, that doesn't make them anything less so. This is based on having worked with companies that do projects in the 10 figure range.