For me it's incomprehensible how a tool that allows you to be 100 times more productive is derided as something we should never use for the sake of craftmanship. Same as shoemakers or horseback messengers 100 years ago. Those who fund the next Nike or FedEx will be the winners of this new race. AI is a tool, an exceptional tool for providing solutions.

▲

hootz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But what does "100x more productive" mean for code quality and employment? Are we all going to adopt it as just another tool? Are 99% of the engineers going to get fired? Do all engineers need to become managers now?

▲

smithcoin 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> how a tool that allows you to be 100 times more productive

Because we don’t agree on this premise

▲

miyoji 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

"100 times more productive" is such a wild exaggeration. Do you understand that productivity is not equal to lines of code written? Yeah, AI can write many lines of code very quickly. Productivity is about making something economically valuable. Are you producing 100 times more value with AI than you were without AI? Is your business making 100 times more money? Are you being paid 100 times as much?

The factories that replaced shoemakers actually produced physical shoes that real humans wore. What is your AI producing, other than garbage bug-filled software that no one wants or needs? What real-life human problems is it solving?

	▲	MyHonestOpinon 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I also think 100x is an exageration. May be 5x for producing coed ? And in terms of understanding, may be 2x.
	▲	ethin an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		So so much this. Also: what does 100x even mean? What is the baseline? I can write a program in 5 minutes that will spit out 10 billion lines of code. As such, does that somehow mean I'm 1000000x more productive?