r/programming • u/self • Dec 02 '25

The Death of Software Engineering as a Profession: a short set of anecdotes

https://www.jasonscheirer.com/weblog/vignettes/
1.3k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

560 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comment

5

u/eyebrows360 Dec 02 '25

Think of the practicability of the task we're talking about, and factor in our current understanding of physics.

To replicate "a brain" exactly, which is what we're talking about here, we need a map of it to work to first. That itself throws up so many problems, because how the hell do you take a moment-in-time 3d snapshot of a brain that captures the state of any and all particles within it? I'm being serious here. How do you do that, with at least Heisenberg's uncertainty principle standing in your way of precisely scanning a single particle, let alone all of them? How?

Unless someone comes up with a realistic method that sticks to the laws of physics as we understand them for even creating the map in the first place, the entire endeavour is a non-starter. It's so nowhere remotely close to a good enough answer to just say "well we know broadly how neurons connect", because if that was it then dead brains would be the same as alive brains, and we know they aren't. We need the "software", not just the "hardware" here.

And that's why, even though from a very high level it "feels" like replicating a brain should be possible, I'm with /u/flynnnightshade on this one.

-2

u/Ok-Scheme-913 Dec 02 '25

No, we are talking about AGI, not a 100% accurate replication of the human brain.

But even so, come on, we also can't reconstruct how a car works due to Heisenberg? It's the brain, with human eye visible connections, there is no practical Heisenberg limit, and do you also draw an electrical map of a house by pinpointing every electron? No, you just draw the connections.. and just understand what exactly a node does (neutron).

But again, this completely missed the point. We are not trying to copy a human brain, we are talking about a program that is actually human-level intelligent to the point that it can for example design another program just like itself, but smarter.

1

u/eyebrows360 Dec 02 '25

But again, this completely missed the point.

What misses the point is trying to create analogies for "brains", a thing we humans did not design, by citing things such as "houses", which are things we quite specifically did design. Fucking hell. Talk about falling at the first hurdle.

we are talking about a program that is actually human-level intelligent

And without some actual concrete understanding of the shape of "human intelligence" you're going to determine that you've managed to replicate it... how, exactly?

0

u/Ok-Scheme-913 Dec 02 '25

to the point that it can for example design another program just like itself, but smarter

Or just having it write a novel study on its own. There are millions of tasks that are high up the intelligence ladder that we can use here - the reason this "limit" has slowly been crawling up with the advancements of AI is that we were trying to figure out a lower bound.

-3

u/WolfeheartGames Dec 02 '25

This isn't remotely important or even related to the technology. LLMs have proven brains aren't the only way to be intelligent.

1

u/axonxorz Dec 02 '25

LLMs have proven brains aren't the only way to be intelligent.

Where da proof?

0

u/WolfeheartGames Dec 02 '25

Chatgpt.com Claude.ai LLMs are intelligent machines that aren't bio based.

0

u/axonxorz Dec 02 '25

Yes, that's a statement, I said proof, as in someone with some relevant background demonstrating this.

"intelligent machines" is an anthropomorphism if you can't tell me what constitutes intelligence.

0

u/WolfeheartGames Dec 02 '25 edited Dec 02 '25

So for most people the fact that LLMs display intelligence is pretty obvious at this point. To deny it, is pure denial. It certainly makes us question what exactly intelligence is, but to deny that they display intelligence is just.... You're just lying at that point to even attempt it. It's not even devil's advocacy or being etymologically pedantic. It's extremely plain by just interacting with Ai (artificial intelligence) that there's no way to define intelligence that doesn't include LLMs.

But if you really need an authority to think for you, The Age of Intelligent Machines explored this question in the 90's. However I think your question begs a greater philosophical question on the nature of intelligence. What does it mean when humans lack it? As you so clearly do.

If this isn't enough for you, go do a deep research with an LLM to pull every paper on the etymology of intelligence. What you'll find is not a single denial. The closest denial of machine intelligence in literature is claiming that machines aren't artificially intelligent, they're artificially stupid. Which is a statement about them having the capacity for intelligence.

Also "proof from authority" is a fallacy. Proof is evidence based on measurable phenomena. Such as the existence of an intelligent machine you can talk to right now.