|
|
|
|
|
|
by kromem
1193 days ago
|
|
|
Something I've begun thinking about after playing with GPT-4 is that I could see within a year or so any of my new software development projects being a "no code" setup using comments to define functions and correct problem areas but leaving all actual code to the generative AI. In many ways software projects for years now have this issue. A decade ago when ruby on rails scaffolded out a project - is the result copyrightable according to the new guidance? Separating out copyrighting software design at a comment level from software implementation is going to be the direction this all goes as the tools rapidly get significantly better. Which is also going to be great, as imagine how a codebase designed this way might be able to be switched to a new language or switch out the 3rd party API being used or database being run on. People are worried about protecting their busy work rather than evolving with the technology to establish their value above and beyond the busywork parts. My value in software engineering isn't in typing up the loop, and less even in knowing that I'll need one. It's in knowing how to manage complexity across a broader cross integration of concerns. The way I'm doing that will change as technology advances, but it will still be some time before that part is automated too. |
|
|
I think this is just normalcy bias on your part. The thing that GPT-4 does apparently works at most levels of complexity, certainly more than GPT-3.
It seems likely that, for sufficiently high N, GPT-N will enable your boss to, as you say, "manage complexity across a broad[er] cross integration of concerns".
There's nothing magical about "cross integration of concerns," any more than there was something magical about being able to use (say) `git rebase` correctly.
There is no reason to think that GPT-N won't be better at you for that, too.
Why would your boss pay you six figures when she can get the same deal for $20 a month?