344 karma · joined July 18, 2015
I suspect it doesn't matter how we feel about it mind you. If it's going to happen it will, whether we enjoy the gains first or not.
* setting aside whether this is currently possible, or whether we're actually trading away more quality that we realise.
fwiw I use a moonlander but many keyboards could work equally well I'm sure
Anyone else weighed up the two approaches, I'm still on the fence tbh.
Right now, with the availability of open weights for cutting-edge models, it feels like this wave of technological advance is pleasantly decentralised however. I can download and run a model and tinker with things which at least feel like the seeds of such a future, where I _might_ be able to build things with my own interests at heart.
But what happens if these models stop being shared, and how likely is that? Reading about the vast quantities of compute deployed to train them, replicating the successes of the main players with a community of volunteers just seems an order of magnitude less achievable than traditional OSS efforts like Linux. This wave feels so tied to massive scale for its success, what do we do if big-tech stop handing out models?
Firstly there is the double edged sword of AI when learning. The easy path is to use it as a way to shortcut learning, to get the juice without the pressing, skipping the discomfort of not knowing how to do something. But that's obviously skipping the learning too. The discomfort is necessary. On the flip side, if one uses an llm as a mentor who has all the time in the world for you, you can converse with it to get a deeper understanding, to get feedback, to unearth unknown unknowns etc. So there is an opportunity for the wise and motivated to get accelerated learning if they can avoid the temptation of a crutch.
The less tractable problem is hiring. Why does a company hire junior devs? Because there is a certain proportion of work which doesn't take as much experience and would waste more senior developers time. If AI takes away the lower skill tasks previously assigned to juniors, companies will be less inclined to pay for them.
Of course if nobody invests in juniors, where will the mid and senior developers of tomorrow come from? But that's a tragedy of the commons situation, few companies will wish to invest in developers who are likely to move on before they reap the rewards.
I think most people's amazement with lsp relates to the practical benefits of such a project _not_ being thrown away but taken that last 10% (which is 90% of the work) to make it suitable for so many use cases and selling people on the idea of doing so.
(There are many other good episodes too - it's one of the best developer podcasts about imo)