dhork

86 96

The article only calls out the "Acting" and "Writing" categories, and the language suggests they are mainly concerned with a human doing the actual substantive work. So in this case, stunt work that is duly credited will probably still be eligible, even if they alter it as you suggest. The whole point of stunt work is to have a stand-in do it, but have it look like the main character in the final product.

Even before AI ate everything, a lot of visual effects have been created with CGI, and they still gave out Oscars for visual effects.

So, now, when I see senior developers (which I am not) vibe code green field projects, I am just astounded as to how they manage the architecture + understanding + optimization + maintenance context.

My experience is, they're not. Like the article says they are just focused on MOAR and not on the quality of the output. It may take years for the unmaintainable code to cause problems, and they may have already been laid off by the time that happens, anyway .

I don't write much code anymore, but when I did, there was a fair amount of embedded code, where fixing a bug is more costly than just pushing out a build to a production server. I actively sought out automation back then, but the purpose of the automation was to help cover edge cases and better test the embedded code for flaws that traced through multiple layers of code.

Whenever I start a new software project, it usually starts with a short period of experimentation when I try out several things. Then, I coalesce on an architecture in my head (and eventually document it), and once I do that I can add more structure to the code.

Given the state of the AI tools today, I can see myself using them to accelerate all the little fiddly parts of this (especially if I can give it a coding standard and have it stick to it). But I wouldn't trust it more than that. I would always keep the archictecture separate, because I don't trust the AI tools to change it on me for no good reason.

Tap: target worker gains Representation

I would just keep cashing those checks....

Ok, maybe not literally baristas. But my point is that the next generation of experts simply will not exist, because all the entry level jobs are evaporating. All of them. Just ask any group of college graduates with a tech degree about how hard the job market is right now.

Yeah, but your calculator does math the same way every time, and doesn't hallucinate wrong answers seemingly at random.

Very few people can do such an expansive job covering the earth as Donald Trump....

“The raw output of ChatGPT’s proof was actually quite poor. So it required an expert to kind of sift through and actually understand what it was trying to say,” Lichtman says. But now he and Tao have shortened the proof so that it better distills the LLM’s key insight.

This tracks with what I have seen regarding AI. It looks superficially awesome, but when you start to analyze its output it has a lot of holes that require someone trained in the art to fix. You know, someone with years of experience, and who got that experience without the benefit of AI shortcuts.

What happens 10 or 15 years from now, when all the current crop of experts are retired and all the experts who could have curated the AI output had to spend all that time as baristas instead because the AI took all of their entry level jobs?

I'm thinking this guy is just a Civ player, and thinks that if we take Istanbul by force, it will give all of our missionaries +1....

Nice

1977....

Roughly 80 years

If I didn't misremember, we're about halfway through waiting.

A bit more than halfway, although sometimes I am shocked by how long ago 1977 was. Wasn't it just, like, 30 years ago or so?

It can't possibly be 49 years ago, can it?