I agree with the fact that LLM's inherently lack agency and I think it's a pretty subtle distinction but it's an extremely consequential one. AI cannot self-initiate anything, they are only able to produce an output as a response to input. The impetus for their action is always an idea that came from a humans mind, no matter how indirect that is. That much is inarguable imo, the possible point of contention is whether the same can be said about humans, and that's a very philosophical question but I am very convinced it's not the case(I won't get into my own philosophical beliefs here).
Despite the fact that the distinction is very philosophical, I think the implications are very practical. Without it's own initiating energy everything an AI produces will be a response to an input, and it's response will be constrained by the bounds implied by that input. The specific type of dialectic between the programmer and the person giving requirements, which leads to creating the ACTUAL requirements, is impossible to happen with an AI, because a dialectic requires two opposed agents/forces while an AI is incapable of being an opposing force because it is only a derivative or product of whatever force is providing it's input; basically, it is constrained inside a box defined by the input it is given, and precisely what is needed for true synthesis(new ideas/thoughts, as opposed to an analytic breaking down of the already proposed ideas) is a whole separate box to interact with the one defined by the input.
My explanation is extremely abstract and will probably only make sense to someone who almost agrees with me already, but that's the best I could do. I'm sure there is a more down-to-earth way to explain this but I guess my understanding isn't good enough to find it yet. In my defense I do think this particular issue of agency in AI is one of the most subtle and philosophical problems in the world right now that actual has practical implications.
you gotta explain why the analogy is applicable, otherwise I could do the same thing and say "I don't understand why so many people are convinced that hovercars won't replace automobiles one day." Infinite analogies could be made to support any conclusion, they aren't worth anything without reasoning(implied or explicit) for why your analogy is particularly relevant compared to others.
Tbh I am completely unsure about the AI Programmer debate, I don't have the knowledge of the AI landscape to make an informed decision. For that reason I do what I often do and make a meta-judgement based on the types of arguments made by each side.
Who is arguing that AI will replace programmers? People who are invested in AI, or people who want cheaper labor.
Who is arguing against that? Programmers who want to keep their job.
Not much to draw from that angle.
What KIND of arguments is each side making?
Programmers: specific points that touch reality directly.
AI Programmer supporters: Typically, arguments are abstract and never touch reality directly, and seem to be motivated by hype more than experience. In the past, there has been cases where the abstract dreamer hype crowd has been right, but typically there are many pre-emptive waves who are wrong(as would be expected, unless you assume that people are incapable of expecting a thing to come before it's time, then there will be waves of people who pick up on a thing before it gets here, and they will be pre-emptive).
For this reason, plus the very limited amount of AI-generated code applied to non-trivial projects that I've seen(which doesn't and shouldn't hold much weight, because I'm not super familiar with the latest tech), I'm feeling like AI replacing programmers is at least a decade off.
I also feel like people are thinking about the problem wrong in general. They are jumping from our current state to a state where we have capable AI programmers without imagining the incremental transformations in work-place structure over time. We've been going through a trend where coding language gets closer to human language since the days of punch cards, and programmers will exist as a job until that trend reaches the point where programmers are "squeezed out". By that I mean, a programmers job is to convert the intentions(not words, important distinction) of the product manager into code, from this perspective they can be considered middlemen. Programmers will exist until the day that AI is so good that a middleman is no longer needed, that a product manager can talk directly to an AI and get the desired results. Knowing how bad product managers are at explaining what they ACTUALLY need, on a concrete literal level, I think this problem is more difficult than people assume. Even if we had AI that produced perfect code that did exactly what was asked of it, I'm not sure if that'd be good enough, precisely because it does EXACTLY what is asked of it.
For a second I thought the title was implying that they were giving the "all clear" TO the asteroid, like, "all good, we won't stop you if you wanna destroy us all." And it didn't even stand out to me as an especially crazy headline considering all the other shit I've been seeing lately.
My wife has a "Dr Dennis Gross Red Light Mask" that has a setting for 650nm + 850nm red light. Supposed to help with aging or something but the specs match up perfectly.
Probably way too expensive for people to buy for this purpose(probably too expensive for skin care too, it's just a mask with red LED's, if I knew that's what she was buying I probably would've just made one. That's probably why she didn't tell me). Anyway, for anyone out there looking to buy a product, it's worth checking if your wife/gf already has something. Lots of products like this for anti aging as well as for hair growth
Despite the fact that the distinction is very philosophical, I think the implications are very practical. Without it's own initiating energy everything an AI produces will be a response to an input, and it's response will be constrained by the bounds implied by that input. The specific type of dialectic between the programmer and the person giving requirements, which leads to creating the ACTUAL requirements, is impossible to happen with an AI, because a dialectic requires two opposed agents/forces while an AI is incapable of being an opposing force because it is only a derivative or product of whatever force is providing it's input; basically, it is constrained inside a box defined by the input it is given, and precisely what is needed for true synthesis(new ideas/thoughts, as opposed to an analytic breaking down of the already proposed ideas) is a whole separate box to interact with the one defined by the input.
My explanation is extremely abstract and will probably only make sense to someone who almost agrees with me already, but that's the best I could do. I'm sure there is a more down-to-earth way to explain this but I guess my understanding isn't good enough to find it yet. In my defense I do think this particular issue of agency in AI is one of the most subtle and philosophical problems in the world right now that actual has practical implications.