> That sounds great until you realize that "hey Claude, read this Jira ticket and implement the feature in this code base" isn't really worth $200K/year.

When you factor in overhead and benefits, many companies were regularly paying that much for someone (many someones) to "read this Jira ticket and implement the feature".

We are currently in the "centaur" phase where a human-AI combination produces the best output, but I think some people are betting on the fact that the AI only product will eventually outperform the centaur. And with the cost of tokens falling thanks to fierce competition from the Chinese open weight models, it's definitely possible that those that bet on AI early will reap payoffs in lower expenditures for more output.

Honestly not sure which side I land on that bet but I definitely can't rule it out.

▲

svachalek 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

We've gone through this with chess, and the days when a human can do anything to help AI there are long past; the human can only drag it down. It seems to me to be a form of the bitter lesson. I expect this will happen in every field where we don't add guardrails to require humans in the network. I have a hard time seeing regulation happening around this in the US but vanity may also serve, will CEOs be satisfied ruling armies of virtual assistants, or do they need big buildings full of human thralls?

▲

emodendroket 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Well, maybe. But most fields of human endeavor aren't very much like a board game with clear, unchanging rules and a single, unambiguous objective.

▲

polotics 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Have we really though?

This is not a silly question, because it's kind of silly:

Has an AI ever actually gone through all of the steps necessary to become a chess master? Go to competitions, raise in the ranks, take a plane to the masters, organize support and all the real life details necessary? Playing chess is just the small formal part here, and all of the obvious things humans obviously do, well...

▲

unknownfuture 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't agree.

Chess is a perfect information game with objective, easily measurable outcomes.

Show me a software business that looks like that and I'll agree with your hypothesis.

Otherwise I don't believe your metaphor proves much of anything.

	▲	emodendroket an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Another thing is, I have been playing Chinese chess a bit lately and, yes, Pikafish is stronger than any human player, but if you actually share a board state or list of moves with an LLM they will fail to accurately interpret the state of the board, let alone give good advice on what moves to make. Doesn't really prove or disprove the claim that LLMs will replace human programmers but it does show that the word "AI" is papering over a lot of specifics of particular technologies.

▲

LPisGood 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

At some point the whims of the CEOs don’t win. The shareholders demand more growth.

▲

dotancohen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Demand from whom, if not the CEO?

	▲	emodendroket 5 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The board, presumably
	▲	LPisGood 5 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Of course the demand will be directed at the CEO and they will have to provide results or be replaced.

▲

doctoboggan 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the days when a human can do anything to help AI there are long past; the human can only drag it down.

I disagree, currently a human guiding an AI agent is far better (more productive for less money) than an AI agent with very loose non-technical guidance and The Ralph Wiggum Loop.

I don't know how much longer humans have, but I don't think they can be cut out of the loop entirely just yet.

▲

svachalek 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In chess? That ended in ~2017.

	▲	doctoboggan 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Sorry, I thought we were talking about Human + LLM agent for software development. I misinterpreted your initial statement.

▲

pydry 4 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>We are currently in the "centaur" phase where a human-AI combination

It's probably more accurate to call it the slop phase.

▲

emodendroket 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Yes, but aren't you just restating the premise in more words?