The point I was trying to make is that whether you should use AI for coding depends on the scale and nature of the task.
To continue the original analogy, even if it's not leisure, a bicycle is a practical choice for short-distance travel. Of course, a car doesn't perfectly replace a bicycle. But would that still be true for distances of tens or hundreds of kilometers?
And this is just an analogy; if you don't like cars, an electric bike, a scooter, or something similar is fine.
>if you don't like cars, an electric bike, a scooter, or something similar is fine.
Assuming that society hasn't been stroaded into artificially favoring cars, to the point where other options become effectively removed, even if they would otherwise have been better-suited to the use case.
> What others do is actually irrelevant to the argument.
If I used to provide some value X in a day, and that was enough to cover my consumption for the day, but now others are providing the same value X in 5 minutes, it will not be enough to cover my consumption for the day anymore
Sure, but we are not talking about evaluating your contributions daily. Over a lifetime, people find new ways to provide more value. Life is long, and that is how adapting works.
We don't all sit at typewriters anymore either, but former typists found other ways to provide value, I'm certain, and didn't just disappear and become homeless (the vast majority of them, anyway).
Once upon a time, we had armies of secretaries that secretly (well, not so secretly) were the backbone of every institution. We don't have that anymore either, since computers replaced many of them.
Computers were originally people. They also got bested by new technology.
None of those people disappeared or became destitute; they adapted, and they found new ways to create more value. (Or, it's possible some ended up working for rent-seeking corporations, which is a different point)
>Sure, but we are not talking about evaluating your contributions daily. Over a lifetime, people find new ways to provide more value. Life is long, and that is how adapting works.
I can't really take that sentiment to my bank when I default on my mortgage while I retrain though. So although you're correct, across a lifetime, this isn't much of an issue, you're minimising people's very real near-term anxieties here.
I'm not being dismissive or trying to minimize anything, I promise. But most people aren't 'losing their jobs to AI' in the short-term as much as you might think. The layoffs have not been due to AI "taking jobs," but due to companies overhiring during the pandemic and finally having an excuse to lay people off, imho.
There is plenty of time to 'retrain.' You could even do it while you currently have a role. Some people won't be able to; I respect that, and those people will still find jobs.
This is certainly not the first 'period of layoffs' to ever occur, and I am not implying people won't face hard times. They may! But that also won't last forever, and when people get laid off they receive unemployment, which helps in the 'not defaulting on your mortgage' thing. Somehow, people (on average) seem to manage not losing their home every time they get laid off.
The idea that our unemployment rate is about to reach 25-50% in the next 3 years is absurd, imho. (I know you didn't say that, and I'm not trying to construct a strawman. I'm just applying numbers to it because 'very real near-term' is not the phrase I'd use for something that is, in my estimation, still half a decade or more away.)
So, CodeQL found a vulnerability in your code, you avoided the warning by adding an intermediate variable (but ignored the vulnerability), and you are frustrated with CodeQL, not the person who added this variable?
Yes. The tolerance for slow-loading pages has shrunk dramatically since the early days of the web. Admittedly, 20 seconds was pushing it and people tried to reduce image sizes and such things to make it faster. But I recall in the late 90s, when I was selling CMS software to IBM, they had a rule that all pages needed to load within 3 seconds, and that was considered fast in those days.
reply