The question being - are LLMs 'good' at interpreting and making choices/decisions about data structures and relationships?
I do not write code for a living but I studied comp sci. My impression was always that the good software engineers did not worry about the code, not nearly as much as the data structures and so on.
"But translating my prompts to code is not working as well, because my prompts are in natural languages, and hence ambiguous."
Not only that, but there's something very annoying and deeply dissatisfying about typing a bunch of text into a thing for which you have no control over how its producing an output, nor can an output be reproduced even if the input is identical.
Agreed natural language is very ambiguous and becoming more ambiguous by the day "what exactly does 'vibe' mean?".
People spoke in a particular way, say 60 years ago, that left very little room for interpretation of what they meant. The same cannot be said today.
" There's still decades worth of progress to be made this way."
That's not true. Moreover the progress can slow to a crawl where it's barely noticeable. And in that world the humans continues to stay ahead - that's the magic of humans. To be aware of surroundings and adapt sufficiently whilst taking advantage of tools and leveraging them.
Many people I know initially used ChatGPT for awhile. Then after awhile they went to Gemini. Again stuck with it for awhile. And now are dabbling with Claude.
Yep there really is no switching cost it seems.
People generally want something from a model and then leave. I think people are sub-consciously forming relationships with Tech firms such that they do not care about them, and its all about what the user themselves gets. Generally there is no attachment. There's some examples of psychotic stuff but that's thankfully the exception not the norm.
That's why Apple cares deeply about its brand - it doesn't want to fall into that group of firms.
The professional typist' role evolved - to serving through other ways, as you say - by become executive assistants. Much like a Bank Tellers' role also evolved.
And its not because they (executives) are too lazy to type. They actually need people to manage their calendar, monitor emails etc. Moreover, the personal computing revolution led to an expansion of firms that needed more of said people.
Could this be disrupted by things like OpenClaw? Maybe. Personally I doubt it. Trust is a huge element that LLMs have yet to overcome and may never over come. Its the same reason Apple pulled "Apple Intelligence". I know this place is full of doom and gloom, but I am not a SWE by trade so I can see the bigger picture and not get bogged down by the fact it might affect my income.
Moreover, work is more 'fun' with people around. So to you it may seem irrational to keep employed for that basis (call it Culture) but to others, and in particular the executive class - nope. People will start realising things like this once the hysteria dies down.
Ermm.. of course they will. And deservedly so. Perhaps the AI Ceo's will learn the harsh lesson that Government is king, no matter what, and doesn't care about your on-paper-based wealth.
Any party that puts this forward in their manifesto will win.
Is this rocket science?
I've interacted with numerous politicians - all they care about is there own interests lmao. They will work with you until it no longer benefits them.
Yeah OpenClaw for me was the alarm sounding... not just because of the project itself, but the fight between Altman and Zuck to pursue him. It shows a fundamental lack of product sensibility/visionary thinking within OAI and Meta. Having lots of dosh clearly doesn't solve that problem in-house.
I did lol. I can't speak for enterprise in totality, but I see a world where Apple is the dominant provider of products/services for consumer and SMB's.
Google's lack of investment in marketing, design and sales/distributions capabilities is going to hurt them badly. MSFT is no different in many respects - latching onto the investments in 'relationships' and 'switching cost' initiatives that have kept customers loyal to them.
My feeling is that some event will happen close-to-IPO that spooks investors, that results in OAI not IPO'ing. Remember if there are under-writers involved they will not want to go forward.
Then they will face financial distress, and questions over how they get the funding to continue as a going-concern. The only way that'll happen is via issues of shares at a lower price aka destroying the valuation of OAI compared with today.
Anthropic in comparison will be OK, as they have focused on building a viable business enterprise.
They were ridiculed for being 'behind on AI'. They haven't spent a dime on investing in AI-related infrastructure and so on...
And yet, they could stand to be the biggest beneficiaries if not the only. Given that they have plenty of resources in reserve and they are buying back stock - enabling insiders to have a greater say on actions in the future.
When I read this comment all I see is: LLM at the edge - or close to it - will become available. And whoever provides the best eco-system across digital lifestyle and business wins.
Oh... Apple? lol.
Well that'd be funny wouldn't it.
Oh and dont forget Apple got rid of its reliance on Intel too. No reason why this can't happen again.