Hacker News Reader

Comment by state_less | Hacker News Reader

I always figured our domain (computation) is so vast that once programming is automated, so too are all the other jobs. If we get an AGI that can program our programs and learn to learn, it won't be hard to have it write a program to make sales calls, or gather user feedback, or build buzz for the company.

So don't worry, when it happens we can all rest because there won't be any need for our labor anyway.

View on HN

This is my thought as well. Just don't be the first one automated. We will either have figured out post-work society or we will face some sort of collapse.

What about the pix2code example? It's consevable that domain specific automation will reduce the number of jobs that exist.

Assuming pix2code really did automate away traditional UI work, the development effort would then move to the next subdomain (e.g. a sales bot, etc).

I suspect as long as you're willing to learn and are competent, you should have a job until the final effort of a general AI self-learning programmer.

I'm also sceptical about pix2code, but the point is that domain specific automation could consevably reduce the number of overall jobs. The cost of switching domains is also non negligible.

The question with domain specific automation (and one of my takeaways from the article) isn't whether or not you'll have a job, but if the effort your put into getting your current job is worthwhile.

I think the total number of jobs (programming + other) that humans can do economically might go down over time. Programmers can usually pickup the next ambitious project (e.g. a sales bot) when the old domain is no longer profitable.

I think Bartosz is saying that Math and Category theory is useful to learn because it works in a number of subdomains. It can help keep the domain switching cost down somewhat.

The pix2code paper is interesting, but it doesn't really answer the question of translating the UI requirements into the corresponding "business logic" - it's limited to producing the code that manipulates the "surface" elements, so to speak. The real challenge I think for an AGI is translating something like, "This button shows green, if the user has previously scored 10 or higher on the previous 5 tests, which have all been taken in the previous 6 weeks," into code.

Then there's the problem of edge cases - in this case, what if the user has not had an account for more than 6 weeks but has met the other conditions? Now the AGI has to detect that context and formulate the question back to the developer.

The "code will eat your coding job" hype sounds a lot like "we'll have self-driving cars all over the country by 2000" hype (yes, that hype did exist back then,) or going further back, "All of AI is done, we just need a few more decision rules" hype back in the seventies.

For sure, many coding frameworks are a lot simpler now than they were two decades ago, and yes, I think it has meant many aspects of digitized services are now much cheaper. You can build a Wix website for yourself, or a Shopify e-business, without paying a developer, which you needed to do in the year 2000. But the consequent growth in digital businesses has led to induced demand for more developers, as businesses constantly test the edges of these "no-code" services.

I would say we have reached some amount of saturation already. Anec-datally, it seems that if you segmented salaries by experience, you might find some amount of decline or stagnation in the lower levels of experience relative to a decade ago. So in that sense, the original point has some valence, but I don't think it has anything to do with "AI"

Eh. Every time this comes up what is often missed is that humans are complementary to machines and we don’t yet understand conscience and identity all that well.

You’re right that the jobs as they exist today won’t in the future. Just like manufacturing replaced agriculture which was then replaced by services, there will be higher orders of creativity and problem solving that most humans will be engaged in the future.

There really isn’t a lack of problems to solve. Consider that we’ve barely scratched the surface of the earth and the farthest we’ve sent humans to is the Moon. The Space Industry might as well be the economic market that keeps expanding forever...

Humans look a lot like machines to me though. So it seems we are looking at the old machine competing against the new. And maybe the new machine is a hybrid of the old machine with some new feature built in. I don't think we'd call it human though, cyborg maybe.

One of the things I didn't like about Star Trek was that they have this super powerful computer and yet Picard has to ask Wesley to punch in the coordinates on the console and engage the warp coils. What kind of theater is this? Sure a floating monolithic slab of computation in space has less cinema appeal than a crew of humans, but a hardened machine seems more plausible for space travel. Humans can't sustain much more than 1g acceleration and don't live too long.

If everything else is automated, would sales calls even exist? Or any need for buzz?

It's hard to tell. I recently visited my homeland of Albania and was surprised to learn that things like food delivery / ridesharing apps did not exist at all. Someone who goes there could probably make a killing just copying what we have in the States. The future is unevenly distributed, as they say. While we automate away our problems in the first world the third world will be eagerly awaiting existing solutions.

Indeed, if no one (human) is working (and, why should they, if AI exists to do their jobs), who is getting paid? If humans aren’t getting paid, how do they buy goods and services? AI of this level of sophistication almost certainly implies some sort of post-scarcity economy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com