[Rochus]

> Fast forward to today, and I am willing to bet good money that 99% of people who are writing software have almost no clue how a CPU actually works

The fact that many people do not know exactly enough what they are doing can be seen in the result. The people whose goal is to write as robust and efficient software as possible still do have to know and control the details. It's like driving a car; you do not have to be a engineer to drive one; but the more you want to push the limits of performance, the more you need to know about the details. And as far as AI is concerned, despite the predictions and full-bodied promises, we are obviously still a long way from replacing humans as drivers. I see no reason why software development should be any different. There are so many very complex issues involved that are not mentioned in the article. Just understanding the requirements of software will stretch the capabilities of AI for a few more decades.

[dwohnitmok]

> we are obviously still a long way from replacing humans as drivers.

This is only because we as a society have an extremely low tolerance for errors in automated driving and essentially require by default superhuman performance (a self-driving car with an error rate of the median human would never be allowed to be set loose by itself). In scenarios where a 0.1% error rate, 1% error rate, or maybe even 10% error rate are acceptable, AI is making huge strides.

> Just understanding the requirements of software will stretch the capabilities of AI for a few more decades.

I hope so. I'm not sure. And for a variety of reasons that's scary. What gives you a timeline of a few more decades?

[shakow]

AI is making stride in comparatively easy environments, i.e. highways and squared suburbs – when they don't crash into white trucks.

Now, what tends to be forgotten is that there AI-average vs. human average is that humans can also drive e.g. in Turin or Paris at rush hour, on mountain roads under the snow or in the Cornwalls roads while under tempest rains.

It's not that I believe that self-driving AI will never progress to this level, but let us be honest when comparing; they still drive themselves into fully-visible plots by daylight or run over cyclists at night.

[dwohnitmok]

> humans can also drive e.g. in Turin or Paris at rush hour, on mountain roads under the snow or in the Cornwalls roads while under tempest rains.

I'm not sure the median human driver can do all that.

[Jensson]

The roads in those places are full of median and below median drivers.

[lmm]

Plenty of humans (wisely) don't drive certain roads in the rain, or don't drive in big cities at all.

[shakow]

If you're trying to sell me that all drivers in e.g. European or Asian cities are above average humans, I am not buying it.

[darepublic]

The self driving cars aren't yet at ordinary human levels of competence

[q-big]

> It's like driving a car; you do not have to be a engineer to drive one; but the more you want to push the limits of performance, the more you need to know about the details.

This is a potential argument why users don't have to know the arcane details of how the internals of a CPU works, but on the other hand a good argument why programmers should better have a quite good knowledge about that.

[AmericanChopper]

I know exactly how a CPU works, but I can’t say I ever spend much time thinking about that while I’m writing code. Thinking about low level details is often useful, but I can’t say I sit there pondering logic gates while trying to solve programming problems very often.

[Brian_K_White]

You probably spend exactly the right amount of time, which is a tiny bit, many times a day, unconsciously.