I think you're helping GPs point: there is a lot of efficiency gains to be made to match the processing power of the brain, given it's size and power draw.
> Would you be so sure of this opinion if the requirement was to write "a simple CRUD app", but it had to integrate with a poorly documented legacy system and was for a big client with an SLA that could sink the business?
Yes, because I think the underlying patterns are the same. Get data, move it around, serialize/deserialize it, store, query, present. It's very unlikely I'm going to run into some new pattern that's never been seen in code before. This is exactly where I think devs are giving themselves too much credit.
I'm not saying AI can do it without my help either, I'm just saying is that it can help me do it better and faster than I could have done without it.
Sure, if you're one of the few that is building something truly novel, I agree AI will not be as useful to you.
That's why I added the disclaimer above: I'm not working on anything groundbreaking (like most people).
And I disagree with your premise overall, because I think the overwhelming majority of software development is much more like driving on a paved highway than it is like hiking through unmarked forest. Which is exactly why AI works so well: it's trained on thousands of examples of very similar solutions to very similar problems.
All of the hard work has already been done by people before us. We have the luxury of sitting down in front of incredible hardware, operating systems, fully designed languages, optimizing compilers, IDEs to fill in the blanks for us, and now AI to write up entire programs for us - none of which we had anything to do with the creation of. All we need to do is hook things together and slap on a layer of paint.
> But it doesn't work for reasoning and abstraction, so it fails to synthesise and propose novel views
I disagree. Have a conversation with it about your problem and work through design decisions with it. When I do that, I find it gives me a lot of good ideas.
Disclaimer: I'm not working on anything groundbreaking (like most people)
You're right. I forgot that it's impossible for parents and children to misunderstand eachother.
I should have realized it, too, because when my parents tell me something, I know what they really mean, and it's not usually what they actually said to me.
So of course your parents want their house price to go up so they can pay higher taxes while surrounded by more traffic and noise. Seems so obvious now that you say it.
> If that were the case we wouldn't have spent time talking about how it is broken
You've done exactly the opposite. All you've done is defend the system and cast blame at the "bosses" for not doing their job.
> The power is in your hands.
There you go again.
Please update this thread when you put your money where your mouth is and make a real difference. Then all those reading this can be inspired by your actions rather than your empty words.
> Which is literally lobbying, which you refuse to participate in, so that leaves accepting that all your great thoughts will be forever stuck in your head
It's literally not possible to fix a corrupt system by asking a participant in it to change the system that benefits them.
> Unfortunately, magic doesn't exist.
You are under the illusion that we operate under a functional democracy that responds to the will of the people. It's you that believes in magic, not me.
> there's another word we use to describe participating in democracy: Lobbying
And there's another word we can use to describe Lobbying: Bribery.
Lobbying is a (corrupt) industry and I'm not a participant in it, so unfortunately I'm still down to "call your representative".
The system really doesn't work as you say. Representatives don't respond to what their constituents want. They respond to money and and power. That's not democracy.