My concern is what does “smarter” actually mean? If it means producing more functioning code faster across a broader spectrum, fine.
LLMs are based on training over existing data (i.e. examples) to produce output. As LLMs produce more output, they are training on their own data whether it be good or bad. Without technically skilled humans in the loop who know design patterns and best practices, what keeps LLMs from continually degrading the quality of their output? Therefore, less smart.
> My concern is what does “smarter” actually mean?
I mean the thing you imagine I don't mean.
A Company with only C level executives.
Isn't there a Golgafrincham Ark for that?
Even they can be replaced. They probably won’t even be last to go.
C-suite are there to protect the owners so they don't get in trouble if their company breaks the law. That makes them the most important position. Being a good manager is just a bonus.
Seems obvious to me that jobs which primarily require research and thought will be the first to go. The job of a good exec is basically: 1) research the market, 2) make presentations, 3) make high level decisions based on research and input from others and have leaders below you work on those. Ok, 4) is schmooze and maintain relationships but you have an org to do that too.
So they are the ones who have to ship their own code? I have heard of it since 1960s with COBOL
The parent comment didn't require a load-bearing "if".
The riots on the streets might become the problem, it won't be only about housing and life cost.