This just feeds a certain narrative and allows people to take exactly the wrong conclusion. Just because there’s some uncertainty at the edge, it doesn’t change where things are going.
Years of experience don’t correlate to output in all careers. Surgeons and engineers get better over time. This might not be true for all jobs. Meanwhile, management is naturally capped because every manager necessarily needs people to manage under them, so there’ll be 1/N^y managers at the yth level of the org. Unless loyalty ought to be reward for its own sake, it’s not clear why 100% of workers should get promoted indefinitely.
This is not how people use LLMs. If you ask one of these questions you’d get a longer answer, often grounded on the internet. I speculate that conditional on a smart human operator interpreting the results, such interpretations across vendors converge more often than this report makes it seem.
It’s completely wild to me that lifelong programmers come into contact with agentic coding and come to the conclusion that their jobs are safe for one reason or another. AI will definitely be able to write entire software, inclusive of figuring out requirements and asking the right questions. It’s not that far already. Why is it that everyone looks at weaknesses of a technology that didn’t exist a couple years ago instead of appreciating the incredible rate of improvement? I know why, because it’s inconvenient to the narrative of what makes us valuable. But still, our job is to turn ideas into a sequence of logical steps. Why can’t we do the same when forecasting the impact of AI on our jobs?
That paper focuses on breaking the harness, the same hack applies to all tasks. Here we are breaking tasks individually. If these were put on a different, more secure harness, most of the exploits would still work.
This is nonsense. I’m sorry. AI will completely upend the workplace and the economy. Whether that’s self evident today in the numbers in the way that we track those numbers, which is based on how things have historically worked, is not relevant. First principles thinking is enough.
C’mon. Stop wishing for a future that feels convenient. This is not the world in which we live. Everything will change. Let’s help people accept and react to that.Let’s stop with the comfort talking and false hope.
I've been a contributor and reviewer for terminal bench since last August, and this post is about what I've learned designing and reviewing tasks. The guidance is broadly applicable to anyone building an agentic benchmark.I would love feedback from the HN community.
Can you explain what you think will happen, actually? People at OpenAi and Anthropic aren’t longer coding by hand. Are you saying everyone changes their mind and goes back? Not gonna happen. You have to work around this new constrain.
The author’s intuition is still backward calibrated, even though he talks about the future. He doesn’t have an intuition for the future. All code will be AI generated. There’s no way to compete with the AI. And whatever new downsides this brings will be solved in ways we aren’t fully anticipating. But the solution is not to walk back vibecoding. You have to be blind to believe not most code will be vibecoded very soon.
There’s no reason a company should put up with enemies within. In rare instances a disgruntled employee might be able to make a positive contribution. In most cases, even if the employee has valid reasons, by the time they are disgruntled there’s no coming back. It’s best for everyone to move on.
The mistake is that 1 every N waves of hype are in fact monumental shifts and it makes sense to embrace as soon as possible. Also being early to the right thing can have massive implications in appreciating the shift before the general public, which is upstream from making smart resource allocation (investments, career choices). I have a friend that went to super early OpenAI as a designer. He has more equity than most AI researchers there and made a 0.001% amount of wealth. Being early does very much matter in the right conditions.
I don't oppose reading AI generated content in principle, but because it's free to generate, I always am less likely to read super long prose that is AI generated. So the question is whether someone has taken the time to keep it as long as necessary but not longer. Or if there are ways to make it easier for me to commit to the experience, with a sort of TLDR
UBI will likely be necessary but that won’t appease society. Everyone wants to have a chance to climb the ladder. If it becomes self evident that humans can no longer have a meaningful impact on their outcome, there’ll be riots whether they have a roof and food or not.
The goal has nothing to do with you being employed. Your job security is a consequence of the ultimate goal to build AGI. And software development salaries and employment will be affected before getting there. In my opinion, we already past the SWE peak as far as yearly salary. Yes there are super devs working on AI making a lot of dough, but I consider that a particular specialty. On average the salary of a new grad SWE in the US is past its peak if you consider how many new grads can’t get a job.