AI is coming for jobs involving programming and math (which tend to pay higher) because it's possible to generate infinite training data for those fields via using a compiler/theorem prover to check correctness. They're not coming for high-paying jobs like investment banking and architecture because you can't generate infinite synthetic training data for those.

▲

itsafarqueue 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because you’re seeing this firsthand? It’s not what I’m seeing being involved in both investment banking and architecture. This kind of untethered speculation based on feels is so misguided. Both fields are seeing significant upheaval due to AI with no sign of that impact slowing down.

▲

sarkarghya 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

turns out its also very easy to create slides and floor plans and yes its easier to train for those.

I think you may also be incorrect on your notion that training data is proportional to good models if anything the opposite is true. what ai models are ultimately trying to be are a universal theorem prover and encode all human knowledge into "theorems" and rulesets

not trying to come off too harsh here but i think most of the work is just innovating on the frontier or people pleasing

▲

zardo 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> architecture because you can't generate infinite synthetic training data for those.

It's just harder to do. Would not be at all surprised to see e.g. Autodesk bought out for exactly that purpose.

▲

jrowen 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah I think they're definitely coming for architecture. A lot of it is just solving for constraints. The more artistic side will still require a human...at first.

You don't even need Autodesk. You can have Claude whip up a web app and build a higher level understanding of the building and then translate it to whatever output or format you desire.

▲

0c3ca83 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> The more artistic side will still require a human...at first.

Only if people care enough to pay extra; the majority of the market is for functional buildings that look ok, and unless we decide to value humanity, slop buildings will be cheaper.

▲

zardo 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You would get most of the cost out of design by automating the engineering. Whether the customer prefers a pure AI design or spending .001% of the bulding budget on an architect will be a matter of taste I guess.

	▲	0c3ca83 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Most buildings make do with little taste.

▲

jrowen 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the stakes are higher for a building than most slop. Someone still has to pay for it.

In fact, a lot of stuff is already slop, largely because of the design and engineering expertise required. I don't think one-shotting "design me a house in the style of Frank Lloyd Wright with these specifications" is that far off.