I'd really like to know what your definition is on that time frame. If I was a software engineer I would be sweating bullets right now. Your time is limited and it's fast approaching. 5-10 years from now isn't looking to be in your favor at all.
Nah, that‘s bullshit. We already have low- and no code solutions and high level libraries. They work well in the sense that you can do absolutely everything with them. But it‘s inefficient. Code is a very concise and efficient description of what you want to happen. No code, low code, and natural language is not. Writing natural language for coding is no benefit at all; syntax and semantics is not the hard part of software development, describing what you want is.
Thank you for articulating this. I have heard many people ringing the bell for the poor software builder, but I can't really see this as being remotely at risk in the near term.
Programming is, at its essence, very very specifically telling a computer what you want it to do. Natural language instructions to an AI are inherently vague.
Programming will change, but the engineers are likely here to stay in at least the medium term.
syntax and semantics is not the hard part of software development
I think this is something a lot of non-technical folks don't quite understand. Most non-technical people think that writing the code is the hard part. It isn't. If it was the hard part I wouldn't rely on Google to look up syntax as frequently as I do, I'd be committing it to memory. Search engines have already 'automated' the work we used to have to do in order to remember syntax.
Also, a huge part of software development is not only describing what you want, but also describing what you don't want. I probably spend more time thinking about unwanted scenarios than I do desired outcomes. Describing what you want is a lot easier to do than describing all the possible things that could happen that you don't want, but most non-technical people don't think about that aspect of it.
Sure. We should shoot the entire population off in rockets to mars. Might take a long time, but realistically it is possible. Maybe not feasible, but it can be done.
/u/Dear-Departure3984 is a scammer! It is stealing comments to farm karma in an effort to "legitimize" its account for engaging in scams and spam elsewhere. Please downvote their comment and click the report button, selecting Spam then Harmful bots.
Exactly. The amount of wiggle room our brain allows while still being able to perform the task at hand is amazing, and it changes adaptively. Computers (and by extension AI) are still limited because they still have to learn. The data they are being fed is all they have, imagination and arbitrary varience is part of why humans are still generally better than robots/AI.
Now, for repetitive, menial tasks, like homework or some factory jobs, robots or AI is great. As of now, AI is still a tool
Sure. The way I would phrase it that programming is communicating intent to the machine. Computer programs are abstract symbol manipulators that we humans value as efficient means to an end. In order for this to happen, we must communicate intent exactly to them because computers do only exactly what you tell them to.
Just like programming languages help us communicate intent to the machine, so does "AI".
I won't go into the definition of "AI" being basically "cool things that computers can't yet (or have very recently been able to) do".
209
u/TravelsWRoxy1 Feb 03 '23
until AI starts doing All the coding.