|
|
Xaotiq wrote: the IDE comes with a compiler that understands LINQ.
No, it knows the rules for checking the syntax. It has no idea what the query does or why it is needed. Your example is still of a specialized tool which has no initiative, no thought-process, no validation, nothing.
Xaotiq wrote: You might learn something
Again, you assume too much 
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Eddy Vluggen wrote: Xaotiq wrote: Cars are rented out. So are programmers.
A car is a piece of equipment that does not think, nor take intelligent decisions.
So you're telling me that half of my managers have actually been cars???
I said that tongue-in-cheek ... but that does describe an unfortunate number of managers I've experienced. [To be fair, I've had the pleasure of working with brilliant managers.]
|
|
|
|
|
BryanFazekas wrote: So you're telling me that half of my managers have actually been cars???
Did the managers pick the shortest route?
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
The longest path between two points is a shortcut ... so yeah, they typically pick the shortest route ...
|
|
|
|
|
Primarily I'm tasked with developing abstract platforms (and deciding when stretching one any further is counter-productive). Wherever the coding will go, the job's not going to be abstracted by a machine anytime soon. Neither will drag-and-drop applications make it all the rage for our current smart-phone-infatuated.
Outsourcing the work to 'far off lands' has always found itself in the state of disaster. The quality of the work, at best, is "textbook" - which is without insight and the kind of thing that can be done by a machine.
As an interesting aside, using web pages as an example: I originally used some sort of drag-and-drop environment. Once I started to want to make things interesting it became necessary to hand code the pages. Now, that's all I do. The easy way just doesn't cut it.
And there's always winning the lottery.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Xaotiq wrote: This will allow them to spend more time on the execution of new ideas rather than coming up with them.
Here, I totally disagree.
The place where humans are essential is coming up with the new ideas. Let the machines do the grunt work.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You give an example I would, but to the contrary purpose:
The Billion dollar decisions are made by a machine (algorithm, at least) that was created by a person - but first and more importantly - someone had to think up the idea that such an algorithm could exist and be useful).
Analytics pointing to the gaps - only for the trivial. The real work's already been done and the model set up: the gaps need to be defined, at least implicitly.
Creativity is the real multi-tasking experience: : concepts that may have no relation at all can be brought together to create and problems solved by routes not part of the ('coded') working set of tools. As of now (at least so far as I know) that realm still remains in the hands of humans - and not that many of them.
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "As far as we know, our computer has never had an undetected error." - Weisert | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you are seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
I find it interesting that most of the detractors to the concept of AI taking over their job are basing their viewpoint on that an AI could never have those skills.
But what if an AGI could exist that would have the induction, intuition, creativity and emotions akin to a human?
I believe that if an AGI became advanced enough to replace me and my development talents, every society on the planet would be so transformed that I would have no worry about my next paycheck and could spend the rest of my days writing novels and directing movies.
Am I be worried? Nope, either way.
Is AGI coming? Yup. Eventually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
If robots can create software better than any humans - and are allowed to - then we are all stuffed anyway
|
|
|
|
|
Have soldering iron, will travel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I partially agree with other comments, that programming will be one of the last things in danger. But...
IF... (a big if), computers do get so far that they can write software and learn from own errors, the learning curve will be exponential.
To be honest a job is the last of my concerns in such a situation. 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1)I have been long enough in automation as well, that's why I said I partially agree, but the point is: noone is irreplaceable.
2) The whole speech you gave missed the point that my message was another one.
Have a nice day
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fact is, software does replace people and therefore contributes to increasing the unemployment rate. It may not seem to have much effect now, but it's only going to keep increasing. Factor that in with an ever increasing world population and it will eventually be too much to sweep under the rug and ignore.
People always laugh when I tell them that the robots will destroy the world, but I think that's because they take it literally like some sort of Judgement Day event.. of course, there are plenty of other opportunities for self-destruction floating around.. it's hard to predict which one we will set off first
|
|
|
|
|
2 mins faster than me
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: software does replace people
Software replaces people who do tasks that do not require intelligent thinking. Perhaps that isn't such a bad thing.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! If it managed to remove them from existence then I would agree... but they just go back in to the unemployment pot.
There are plenty of important jobs in the world that can cater for all levels of intelligence. The problem isn't that some people aren't as clever as others, the problem is that there are just too many people.
Oh, and well I'm at my keyboard... there are waaay too many selfish people in the world.
|
|
|
|
|
musefan wrote: but they just go back in to the unemployment pot.
Which is why we need to do better at education and other things.
There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
