Comment by RivieraKid

1 day ago

I've been increasingly "freaking out" since about 3 - 4 years ago and it seems that the pessimistic scenario is materializing. It looks like it will be over for software engineers in a not so distant future. In January 2025 I said that I expect software engineers to be replaced in 2 years (pessimistic) to 5 years (optimistic). Right now I'm guessing 1 to 3 years.

> I've been increasingly "freaking out" since about 3 - 4 years ago and it seems that the pessimistic scenario is materializing. It looks like it will be over for software engineers in a not so distant future. In January 2025 I said that I expect software engineers to be replaced in 2 years (pessimistic) to 5 years (optimistic). Right now I'm guessing 1 to 3 years.

Tell me how this will replace Jira, planning, convincing PM's about viability. Programming is only a part of the job devs are doing.

AI psychosis is truly next level in these threads.

  • > Programming is only a part of the job devs are doing.

    Programming is a huge part of the job. In a world where AI does the programming we're going to need 80% fewer software professionals.

    It won't be a full replacement of the role, you're correct there - but it'll be a major downsizing because of productivity gains.

  • If the "new software engineering" is Jira, planning, and convincing PM's about viability all day, you can count me out!

  • Have you never filed JIRA tickets, planned, or debated viability with an AI? Which part of those are you finding that an AI absolutely cannot do better than the average developer?

it's not gonna get much more autonomous without self play and major change in architecture

I assure you it will soon become very clear that mass job losses are one of the least concerning side effects of developing the magic "everything that can plausibly been done within the constraints of physics is now possible" machine.

We're opening a can of worms which I don't think most people have the imagination to understand the horrors of.

  • While I'm definitely concerned that AI is a massive driver of centralization of power, at least in theory being able to do far more things in the space of "things physics admits to be possible" is massively wealth enhancing. That is literally how we have gotten from the pre-industrial world to today.

    • Controversially I'd argue that there is likely an optimal and stable level of technological advancement which we would be wise to not to cross. That said, we are human so we will, I'd just rather it happened in a couple hundred years rather than a decade or two.

      For example, it's hard to imagine an AI which gives us the capability to cure cancer, but doesn't give us the capability to create target super viruses.

      Nick Bostrom's Vulnerable World Hypothesis more or less describes my own concerns, https://nickbostrom.com/papers/vulnerable.pdf

      At some point we should probably try to resist the urge to pick balls out of the urn as we may eventually pull out a ball we don't want.

      1 reply →

  • Do you have any sources I could read to better understand your concern?

    • What sources would you even be looking for? I think you're asking the wrong question. It's not like I'm arguing a scientific theory which can be backed by data and experimentation. I can only provide you reasoning for why I believe what I believe.

      Firstly, I'd propose that all technological advances are a product of time and intelligence, and that given unlimited time and intelligence, the discovery and application of new technologies is fundamentally only limited by resources and physics.

      There are many technologies which might plausibly exist, but which we have not yet discovered because we only have so much intelligence and have only had so much time.

      With more intelligence we should assume the discovery of new technologies will be much quicker – perhaps exponential if we consider the rate of current technology discovery and exponential progression of AI.

      There are lots of technologies we have today which would seem like magic to people in the past. Future technologies likely exist which would make us feel this way were they available today.

      While it's hard to predict specifically which technologies could exist soon in a world with ASI, if we assume it's within the bounds of available resources and physics, we should assume it's at least plausible.

      Examples:

      - Mind control – with enough knowledge about how the brain works you can likely devise sensory or electro-magnetic input that would manipulate the functioning of brain to either strongly influence or effectively dictate it's output.

      - Mind simulation - again, with enough knowledge of the brain, you could take a snapshot of someones mind with an advanced electro-magnetic device and simulate it to torture them in parallel to reveal any secret, or just because you feel like doing it.

      - Advantage torture – with enough knowledge of human biology death becomes optional in the future. New methods of torture which would have previously have killed the victim are now plausible. States like North-Korea can now force humans to work for hundreds of years in incomprehensible agony for opposing the state.

      - Advanced biological weapons – with enough knowledge of virology sophisticated tailor-made viruses replace nerve agents as Russia's weapon of choice for killing those accused of treason. These viruses remain dormant in the host for months infecting them and people genetically similar to them (parents, children, grandchildren). After months, the virus rapidly kills its hosts in horrific ways.

      I could go on, you just need to use your imagination. I'm not arguing any of the above are likely to be discovered, just that it would be very naive to think AI will stop at a cure for cancer. If it gives us cure for cancer, it will give us lots of things we might wish it didn't.

      4 replies →

  • yeesh yep, though it's more Pandora's Box than a can of worms, since it can't exactly be closed once it's opened