[0x500x79]

There is a great article floating around on the economics of AI and how parasitic the current market is between the Fab Five.

We are 27-ish months since the claim that all software engineers would be replaced within six months by some of these CEOs. It is their job to analyze the market and determine what the next big thing is, but they can be wrong - no one has a crystal ball here.

The difficulty for me is how disconnected a lot of the takes are (or even flat out manipulative) that are being pushed out. I am an early adopter of AI tools. I utilize them on a day-to-day basis, but there is no way that I see AI taking SW jobs right now.

You have others claiming that these tools will just get exponentially better now, time will tell, but as of right now there is still too much value in human coders any anyone that is actively pushing for replacing SWE with "Agents" is either betting big on the future (that is unproven) or attempting to entice/manipulate the larger market.

[wslh]

I think part of the solution is to start discussing the specific limitations of LLMs, rather than speaking broadly about AI/AGI. For example, many people assume these models can understand arbitrarily long inputs, but LLMs have strict token limits. Even when large inputs fit within the model's context window, it may not reason effectively over the entire content. This happens because the model's attention is spread across all tokens, and its ability to maintain coherence or focus can degrade with length. These constraints along with hardware limitations like those in NPUs are not always obvious to everyday users.

[0x500x79]

I agree, but unfortunately it falls flat IME. The hype is too strong and being pushed by the Fab Five that is causing an unbearable wall to these conversations.

I have these conversations on a day-to-day basis and you are labeled as a hater or stupid because XYZ CEO says that AI should be in everything/making things 100x easier.

There is a constant stream of "What if we use an LLM/AI for this?" even when it's a terrible tool for the job.

[marcosdumay]

> You have others claiming that these tools will just get exponentially better now

Most of those same people are also claiming that the last iteration of LLMs are too smart and that the previous ones worked better for agent (agentic?) programming...