[beng-nl]

I’ve been thinking about this, or a variant of it.

Hypothetically, I’m scared and sad that AI can replace me (it currently can’t, not literally, but a lot of my skill and expertise, built up over say 30 years, that used to be valuable and rare is now cheap to get from an AI).

Let’s try to see the upside. How ‘powerful’ would it make me if, at the cost of my own edge being dulled, can access everyone else’s edge?

I am still my own expert. Now with AI I have a minor expert in everything else as well. What is the best way to use that? don’t have an answer but it’s an aspect I haven’t seen discussed much and I think it is worth bringing up.

[kqr]

As of today, "minor expert" is the wrong way to phrase it. The flagship LLMs today are at best at an initiate or apprentice level in every field.[1] This is not meant as a derisive remark – having something at hand that is initiate level in every field is remarkable and useful. But it's nowhere near expertise anywhere.

[1]: https://entropicthoughts.com/stop-using-junior-and-senior

[brabel]

You seriously think current LLM is just at apprentice level in programming? It can write stuff one shot that I’d expected even some experts to struggle to do even with ample more time allowed.

[dminik]

Kind of, yeah. LLMs are hyperoptimized for one-shotting. But all of their code is like that. It's poison for the long term health of the codebase.

[dsego]

They will one shot with bunch of duplicated code, somehow they will just omit basic things, like security middleware. It will all kind of work. But then you make additional passes to do review and clean up, suddenly there is a lot more work to make it half decent.

[kqr]

Yes. The definition of the apprentice/journeyman boundary is that a journeyman can do a day's job unsupervised. LLMs cannot do that.