Humans are terribly bad at empathy and ethics.

If you, like me, don't like the idea of your standard of living dropping to that of even just the mean human being on earth, I find it extremely painful to watch people justifying their way around not trying absolutely anything to raise everyone to at least our current level. Increasing productivity is demonstrably such a way, while many other experiments are so far just that: Experiments + wishful thinking.

If that merely means realigning/cutting current jobs (a process, that is ongoing from the start of human civilization itself, which brought us prosperity and why the fuck would it stop now) to me it's a moral obligation to deal with that at some other level.

There is tons to do here, certainly including how we will do redistribution better, and quickly, etc. Let's get to it.

i dont really see strict acceleration, in fact i would say weve kept up roughly the same velocity since the first reasoning models

I really wish that LLMs could generate good quality code without repeated instructing.

Here's where I think the issue is; they are trained to solve a problem. Not how, just whether or not they did.

Example: I asked Luna to use parser combinators to parse an Excel sheet that was represented as sparse triples (row, column, data). It imported the library and wrote spaghetti if-statement soup to get it to work. I asked Astra to fix it and it just refined the spaghetti slightly. I was able to browbeat Astra into actually using the library to complete the task. Was it faster than me doing it by hand? Probably. Was it more frustrating? Way more.

And every time I review vibe code it's always the same. Bespoke functions everywhere, no greater themes or ideas. No bigger picture. Your code can't support much if it has no central themes. You can probably one-shot a three js game to post on r/singularity for updoots. Not real code though.

I feel like the optimal way to use an LLM is to code until you feel like the rest of a problem is trivial and then you hand it off. And sometimes they still erase my code and add their own style lol

Not OP but here's my take on it.

> There's hardly any work you can think of which can't be done faster / beter with ai assistance

True, and someone needs to be the creative brain behind the decisions. AI can help you implement. When I say help, I mean literally help because one-shotting and vague prompts can get you only so far, usually with a lackluster result. While AI is good at analyzing solutions, and finding out holes in one's thinking, ultimately, it is some creative actor that needs to understand the bigger picture to evaluate trade-offs, understand scope creeps, and spot overengineered implementations. For now that actor is a human.

> If you have an anti-example, would like to hear.

In my personal experience, especially with greenfield projects, smarter models tend to overengineer the solutions. However, I haven't used Fable and Astra models, maybe they are better at creative tasks without overengineering.

I think it depends on what you think your job is.

If your job is/you enjoy writing the code and solving technical challenges then yes this changes very heavily and AI will do this more efficiently than a human.

But if your job is designing systems and implementing solutions and coming up with good code along the way then I don't see AI getting anywhere close to making you obsolete in the foreseeable future.

I personally don't enjoy writing C++ but I really enjoy solving problems.

the trouble is if i have to review/direct the model, suddenly we go from a 10x increase in speed to a 1-3x increase in speed. sure it will be faster, but im still limited by my reviewing/directing speed, which is slower than usual because I didn't write the code

This is the thing I mention often.

"Am I arguing against the shuttle loom!?"

Then I realize that the shuttle loom led to the rise of unions because of unfair treatment in factories and realize that we have a _long_ way to go.

And don't forget WWI and WWII enabled by industrialization.

Not OP but that seems to be the implication. Let’s hear your argument against industrialization being net positive?

It's about right for any developed western country.

I keep repeating this too.

The history of the self driving car is apt to repeat as well. I remember thinking "2015, 2018 maybe at the latest." But as 2015 (and 2018) came and went, expectations were tempered.

We will see shortened development cycles, and maybe even orders of magnitude shorter development cycles.

But hard problems remain hard (there are only so many chips, materials research and biology are difficult problems). Manufacturing remains a choke point.

I'm more concerned that the absolute worst persons on the planet are in charge of many of these technologies. If those that are in charge are more concerned about allocating resources and power in their favor, the more dismal the future of all humanity will be (including for those in charge, but they can't see that due to self-interest bias)

#ad

Throughout all of human history, humans were the substrate of value creation. When humans can be removed from the manual labor part of a problem, they are.

Now we're clearly entering a world where humans can be removed from the intelligent-problem-solving part of the problem.

How many more parts of problems are there?

And what that would be? Prostitution?