Comment on Does AI need to be perfect to replace jobs?
jarfil@beehaw.org 12 hours ago
There’s a good commentary about that in here:
AWS CEO Matt Garman just said what everyone is thinking about AI replacing software developers
“That’s like, one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard,” he said. “They’re probably the least expensive employees you have, they’re the most leaned into your AI tools.”
“How’s that going to work when ten years in the future you have no one that has learned anything,”
I never thought I’d say this about an Amazon exec, but this guy seems to actually be based in reality.
My biggest frustration with “AI” is that we’re pretending automation is new. I don’t mean going back to the Industrial Revolution, but that’s been the whole point of code since its inception. Other than having faster pipes to vacuum up everything, this is very much linear.
Thing is, we used to know what the code actually did. These are snake-oil salesmen.
Least expensive employees? Does he mean salary wise? I was always under the impression software devs were paid well
You can easily overwork devs, and while their salary is higher than others a difference between 60k and 120k salaries is less than 60 employees to do manual work and 15 to automate it.
Plus when devs create a digital item that can generate a profit nearly indefinitely they are viewed as cost productive to MBA types. Versus janitors where for some reason we dont see a value at all in cause of no immediate profit from their position.
Powderhorn@beehaw.org 12 hours ago
This is something often overlooked. You think you don’t need to develop staff so that your company, like, continues? OK, have fun with that.