[bitwize]

AI doesn't need to outrun the bear; it only needs to outrun you.

Once the tools outperform humans at the tasks to which they were applied (and they will), you don't need to be involved at all, except to give direction and final acceptance. The tools will write, and verify, the code at each step.

[neonstatic]

> Once the tools outperform humans at the tasks to which they were applied (and they will)

I don't get why some people are so convinced that this is inevitable. It's possible, yes, but it very well might be the case, that models cannot be stopped from randomly doing stupid things, cannot be made more trustworthy, cannot be made more verifiable, and will have to be relegated to the role of brainstorming aids.

[qsera]

>I don't get why some people are so convinced that this is inevitable.

Someone once said that It is hard to make a man understand things if their profit depends on them not understanding it...

[neonstatic]

I don't make money coding, so it doesn't apply to me in this case.

[NateEag]

I think they meant that people insisting total genAI takeover of coding is inevitable are likely people who stand to profit greatly by everyone giving up and using the unmind machines for everything.

[orangecoffee]

the original post is an example of how. Every programmer is discovering slowly, for their own usecases, that the agent can actually do it. This happens to an individual when they give it a shot without reservation..

[sciencejerk]

Large scale AI datacenters require a very expensive physical supply chain that includes cheap land, water, and electricity, political leverage, human architects and builders to build datacenters, and massive capital investments. Yes, AI will outperform humans, but at some point it may become cheaper to hire a human programmer.

[Ferret7446]

Wait till you hear about the resources required to sustain an equivalent number of humans.