• pjhenry1216@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Coding is a poor example. It’s a language. It’s simply translating from one language (pseudocode) to another (the programming language you requested). As long as you give it clear instructions, it’s not “solving” anything. It’s like saying Google translate created something new because you asked it to translate a sentence no one has asked before.

    Honestly, I don’t think there’s as significant “emergent” capabilities beyond it just being better at performing than they expected.

    • SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I suppose that’s my bad for the article I linked which doesn’t really go into specifics on what the capabilities are. One of the big ones is tool use. You can give it a task and a list of tools to use and it can use the tools to compete the task. this capability alone makes a huge amount of automations possible that weren’t possible before LLMs.

      I’m getting the impression your definition of “new” is “something only a human could come up with.” Please correct me if I’m wrong here. People who create completely novel things are few and far between. They’re typically the ones remembered for centuries. Though honestly, even then they’re usually standing on the shoulders of those before them. Just like what AI does. Look at AlphaFold, an AI that is rapidly accellerating disease research and solving many other hard problems.

      Anyway, if I can prompt the AI to write code for me and even if you don’t count that as something new, it’s a force multiplier on my job, which is a huge benefit. As Hanabie said, there’s going to be a lot of changes in jobs due to AI and those who don’t adapt are going to be left behind. I’m commenting here in hopes of helping people see that and not get left behind.

      • pjhenry1216@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        You realize you essentially just argued my point though. That’s basically my analogy with the cloud. It’s not replacing anything. I could have been clearer I suppose, but the crux of it is that it’s not replacement.

        • SirGolan@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Oh hmm. Are you just saying that it can’t fully replace people at jobs? Because I generally do agree with that at least with current models and methods of using them. It’s getting close though, and I think within a year or two we will be there for at least a bunch of professions. But on the other hand, if it makes workers in some jobs 2x more productive then the company only needs to keep half of those workers to maintain the same output. I think this is where it’s going to start / has already started.