• AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      But those people don’t need to be programmers.

      The reality is, that most software is complex, but trivial. It’s s bunch of requirements, but there’s no magic behind it. An AI that can turn a written text containing the requirements into a decently running program will replace tons of developers.

      And since a future AI, that’s actually trained to do software, won’t have problem juggling 300 requirements at once (like humans have), it’s relatively easy to trust the result.

      • dust_accelerator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        it’s relatively easy to trust the result.

        … just as easy as taking the responsibility for it if it fails?

        • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do human programmers not fail?

          I don’t want to hype AI, but you’re basically comparing a high school graduate AI (lots of general knowledge, no specialization) with a perfect senior dev. But that’s not really fair.

          As soon as an AI works better than the average developer in a given area, it will outperform them. Simple as that.

          Of course it will make errors, but the question is, are the extra errors compared to a human worth the savings?

          Just a quick example: let’s say you’d need 10 devs of 100k a year and they produce errors worth 200k a year. That means costs of 1.2million a years.

          If an AI costs 100k in licenses, replaces 5 devs and only adds, say 200k in errors, you’re still at only 1 million a year.