Search Results
6/18/2025, 12:33:32 PM
>>507841422
I can personally attest to the fact that what would have taken me a dozen hours to code before can be done with little to no errors in just a few prompts. Obviously it's not God so it can be (and will be) wrong here and there, and if you give it a real challenging task it might fall apart... just like Human programmers!
Now try using 10,000 of these things. Ok, there goes like half your work force. And just imagine how good this technology will be in 3 years alone, let alone 5, 10, and beyond.
Anyone who tries to argue that AI won't eventually take *at least* half of jobs are, frankly, either in denial or don't know a sufficient amount about the space to make a rough estimate of similar consequence.
I hate to sound like a condescending Redditor but this is simply the case. You can argue that the rate of improvement might somewhat plateau *temporarily* in worst case scenario, but what's travelling 50 in a 60 when you have infinite time to get to the end of the road?
I can personally attest to the fact that what would have taken me a dozen hours to code before can be done with little to no errors in just a few prompts. Obviously it's not God so it can be (and will be) wrong here and there, and if you give it a real challenging task it might fall apart... just like Human programmers!
Now try using 10,000 of these things. Ok, there goes like half your work force. And just imagine how good this technology will be in 3 years alone, let alone 5, 10, and beyond.
Anyone who tries to argue that AI won't eventually take *at least* half of jobs are, frankly, either in denial or don't know a sufficient amount about the space to make a rough estimate of similar consequence.
I hate to sound like a condescending Redditor but this is simply the case. You can argue that the rate of improvement might somewhat plateau *temporarily* in worst case scenario, but what's travelling 50 in a 60 when you have infinite time to get to the end of the road?
Page 1