[SarahC_]

"Bullshit jobs" are the rubbish required to keep the paperwork tidy, assessed and filed. No company pays someone to do -nothing-.

AI isn't going to generate those jobs, it's going to automate them.

ALL our bullshit jobs are going away, and those people will be unemployed.

[tim333]

I foresee programers replaced by AI and the people who programed becoming pointy haired bosses to the AI.

[dgfitz]

I for see that when people only employ AI for programming, it quickly hits the point where they train on their own (usually wrong) code and it spirals into an implosion.

When kids stop learning to code for real, who writes GCC v38?

This whole LLM is just the next bitcoin/nft. People had a lot of video cards and wanted to find a new use for them. In my small brain it’s so obvious.

[nhod]

i dunno, i have gotten tons of real work done with LLM’s. i just had o3 edit a contract and swap out pieces of it to make it work with SOW’s instead of embed the terms directly in the contract. i used to have to do that myself and have a lawyer review it. (i’ve been working with contracts for 30 years, i know enough now to know most basic contract law even though IANAL.) i’ve vibe coded a whole bunch of little things i would never have done myself or hired someone to do. i have had them extract data in seconds that would have taken forever. there is without question real utility in LLM’s and they are also without question getting better very fast.

to compare that to NFT’s is pretty disingenuous. i don’t know anyone who has ever accomplished anything with an NFT. (i’m happy to be wrong about that, and i have yet to find a single example).

[dgfitz]

There is without question value to LLMs, I absolutely agree.

Trying to make them more than they are is the issue I have. Let them be great at crunching words, I’m all about that.

Pretending that OpenAI is worth billions of dollars is a joke, when I can get 90% of the value the provide for free, on my own mediocre hardware.

[tim333]

LLMs maybe but there will be other algorithms.

[dgfitz]

For sure, same point though.

[hansmayer]

Ha-ha, this is very funny :) Say, have you ever tried seriously using the AI-tools for programming? Because if you do, and still believe this, I may have a bridge/Eiffel Tower/railroad to sell you.

[vidarh]

The majority of my code over theast few months has been written by LLMs. Including systems I rely on for my business daily.

Maybe consider it's not all on the AI tools if they work for others but not for you.

[hansmayer]

Sure man, maybe also share that bit with your clients and see how excited they'll be to learn their vital code or infrastructure may be designed by a stochastical system (*reliable a solid number of times).

[vidarh]

My clients are perfectly happy about that, because they care about the results, not FUD. They know the quality of what I deliver from first-hand experience.

Human-written code also needs reviews, and is also frequently broken until subjected to testing, iteration, and reviews, and so our processes are built around proper qa, and proper reviews, and then the original source does not matter much.

It's however a lot easier to force an LLM into a straighjacket of enforced linters, enforced test-suite runs, enforced sanity checks, enforced processes at a level that human developers would quit over, and so as we build out the harness around the AI code generation, we're seeing the quality of that code increase a lot faster than the quality delivered by human developers. It still doesn't beat a good senior developer, but it does often deliver code that handles tasks I could never hand to my juniors.

(In fact, the harness I'm forcing my AI generated code through was written about 95%+ by an LLM, iteratively, with its own code being forced through the verification steps with every new iteration after the first 100 lines of code or so)

[hansmayer]

So to summarise - the quality of code you generated with LLM is increasing a lot faster, but somehow never reaching senior level. How is that a lot faster? I mean if it never reaches the (fairly modest) goal. But that's not the end of it. Your mid-junior LLMs are also enforcing quality gates and harnesses on the rest of your LLM-mid-juniors. If only there was some proof for that, like a project demo, so it could at least look believable...

[Lu2025]

> written by LLMs

Writing code is often easier than reading it. I suspect that coders soon will face what translators face now: fixing machine output at 2x to 3x less pay.

[tim333]

I tried and they weren't that good. I'm gazing into the future a little.

[antonvs]

> "Bullshit jobs" are the rubbish required to keep the paperwork tidy, assessed and filed.

It's also the jobs that involve keeping people happy somehow, which may not be "productive" in the most direct sense.

One class of people that needs to be kept happy are managers. What makes managers happy is not always what is actually most productive. What makes managers happy is their perception of what's most productive, or having their ideas about how to solve some problem addressed.

This does, in fact, result in companies paying people to do nothing useful. People get paid to do things that satisfy a need that managers have perceived.

[r0s]

AI is going to 10x the amount of bullshit, fully automating the process.

NONE of the bullshit jobs are going away, there will simply be bigger, more numerous bullshit.