Rendered at 02:36:21 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
andrei_says_ 3 hours ago [-]
Interesting how we’re using passive language here.
LLMs do not replace jobs, managers constantly try to increase profit. Managers and business owners try to replace people’s jobs via automation.
LLM companies actively try to convince managers and business owners that LLMs are capable of replacing humans in white collar jobs.
An LLM/AI will not replace you, or me.
A business owner or manager might. They also might use an LLM to make decisions.
But let’s not use language which anctively obscures the decision makers in this process.
taurath 43 minutes ago [-]
Only chumps believe them when they say there’s not a choice. I haven’t seen a single manager take a pay cut for doing a layoff after their decisions.
byoung2 6 hours ago [-]
Stepping back from LLMs, look at other jobs that could have been fully automated using technology, but haven't. Some jobs, like a grocery cashier could be automated with self check, or waiters could be replaced with phone ordering. We still have humans in these roles, decades after they could have been replaced.
atleastoptimal 5 hours ago [-]
I think many of the jobs which aren't completely automated, but could be automated based on a explicit reading of their job requirements, are due to many implicit requirements being part of the job.
For cashiers, beyond simply ringing up customers, they serve the function of:
1. Validating IDs
2. Preventing theft
3. Creating a positive atmosphere
4. Helping customers bag groceries
5. Resolving issues/questions about products/the store
For waiters, likewise they have the job of
1. Creating a positive atmosphere
2. Physically bringing food to the table and setting the meal
3. Upselling items, providing recommendations, catering to specific unusual guest needs
etc. Basically all these jobs have a huge soft-skills dependent interface which no technology currently can replicate what humans can do.
I don't think that every job can be trivially automated by a large language model, but any job where the inputs/outputs are entirely via a computer, LLM's are approaching the point where they are equivalently enabled to a human, and there is no "real human body in-person" soft-skills interface.
byoung2 5 hours ago [-]
When I worked at Disney, there were some jobs where people's entire jobs were compiling reports and following up with various departments. Like taking lists of security vulnerabilities from scans and getting commitment dates to fix them. They would take the data out of one system and put it in a spreadsheet. Then they would reach out and create Jira tickets for the teams responsible and then schedule meetings if necessary to discuss. These roles are definitely at risk.
adampunk 38 minutes ago [-]
Even in the US which lags behind in this area it would be obscene to claim that grocery cashiers aren't being actively replaced. That's just not connected to reality. Most grocery stores I've been in have essentially 1 open lane with a human where there used to be a half dozen. You might as well say that airline ticket agents haven't been replaced.
torben-friis 6 hours ago [-]
LLMs will probably get to a point where anyone who provides a well explained, fully detailed account of what they want can get it.
My job is safe.
atleastoptimal 6 hours ago [-]
Is the implication that currently it is rare to get a well-explained, fully detailed account of what someone wants, necessitating you as a "translator" of poorly specified requirements to features that actually solve the problems people are having?
My question is, is that thing which you are doing, ascertaining the subtle concerns, soliciting requirements, etc. truly out of the range of what an LLM or LLM-guided system could do?
cyanydeez 42 minutes ago [-]
programming is the side car to a professional license which is domain knowledge + active ethically required professional license.
ex-aws-dude 7 hours ago [-]
Even if we assume extreme case where coding is only done by 99% LLMs in the future
Who is the best possible person you could hire to operate the LLM?
Who has a good mental model of what its doing underneath and has the best expertise to direct/guide it?
IMO no one is better positioned to use these tools than software engineers
atleastoptimal 6 hours ago [-]
What if the best "person" to operate an LLM is an LLM itself, or more precisely an agentic loop driven by an LLM? DO you believe this won't be the case?
ex-aws-dude 6 hours ago [-]
The CEO of the company is not going to be directing the LLM
At minimum you at least need CEO -> product person -> LLM
There can any number of agents/loops after that but someone has to translate the requirements to the LLM and monitor/verify the results.
What I'm saying is in the extreme case the SE evolves to become the product person.
If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
atleastoptimal 5 hours ago [-]
> The CEO of the company is not going to be directing the LLM
Why not? Many CEOs are prompting LLMs and coding agents directly. What happens when the CEO -> LLM interaction is more efficient than CEO -> product person -> LLM?
> If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
Why couldn't a software company be completely automated with sufficiently powerful LLM-run agents? What fundamentally is the barrier, if the models are intelligent enough?
ex-aws-dude 5 hours ago [-]
Because then you're just describing AGI not LLMs, which in the short term is obviously not happening
Long term maybe but its not a very interesting conversation to talk about things that far out.
atleastoptimal 4 hours ago [-]
what are your definitions of “long term” and “short term” with respect to number of years
comparedge 7 hours ago [-]
a single LLM isn't the threat, a thousand coordinated ones are
erminpour 7 hours ago [-]
"AI models are rapidly getting better." How many times are we going to keep hearing this? Give the horse the dang carrot!
I'm so tired of hearing about AI.
andrei_says_ 3 hours ago [-]
AI models are rapidly getting better… at creating an unstoppable tide of hype about AI models rapidly getting better.
balefulboy 5 hours ago [-]
I still don't know why people are saying this. I don't really code but from what I've heard on here the models haven't improved since Opus 4.5
atleastoptimal 6 hours ago [-]
>How many times are we going to keep hearing this?
Until it's no longer true
comparedge 7 hours ago [-]
ppl said same thing about cloud, smartphones, n the internet dude
the signal is usually hidden inside the hype
blinkbat 7 hours ago [-]
No. The only defense is societal.
andsoitis 7 hours ago [-]
... because I'm not defined solely by "intelligence".
LLMs do not replace jobs, managers constantly try to increase profit. Managers and business owners try to replace people’s jobs via automation.
LLM companies actively try to convince managers and business owners that LLMs are capable of replacing humans in white collar jobs.
An LLM/AI will not replace you, or me.
A business owner or manager might. They also might use an LLM to make decisions.
But let’s not use language which anctively obscures the decision makers in this process.
For cashiers, beyond simply ringing up customers, they serve the function of:
1. Validating IDs
2. Preventing theft
3. Creating a positive atmosphere
4. Helping customers bag groceries
5. Resolving issues/questions about products/the store
For waiters, likewise they have the job of
1. Creating a positive atmosphere
2. Physically bringing food to the table and setting the meal
3. Upselling items, providing recommendations, catering to specific unusual guest needs
etc. Basically all these jobs have a huge soft-skills dependent interface which no technology currently can replicate what humans can do.
I don't think that every job can be trivially automated by a large language model, but any job where the inputs/outputs are entirely via a computer, LLM's are approaching the point where they are equivalently enabled to a human, and there is no "real human body in-person" soft-skills interface.
My job is safe.
My question is, is that thing which you are doing, ascertaining the subtle concerns, soliciting requirements, etc. truly out of the range of what an LLM or LLM-guided system could do?
Who is the best possible person you could hire to operate the LLM?
Who has a good mental model of what its doing underneath and has the best expertise to direct/guide it?
IMO no one is better positioned to use these tools than software engineers
At minimum you at least need CEO -> product person -> LLM
There can any number of agents/loops after that but someone has to translate the requirements to the LLM and monitor/verify the results.
What I'm saying is in the extreme case the SE evolves to become the product person.
If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
> If you want to argue for fully autonomous companies then thats drifting into sci-fi
Why couldn't a software company be completely automated with sufficiently powerful LLM-run agents? What fundamentally is the barrier, if the models are intelligent enough?
Long term maybe but its not a very interesting conversation to talk about things that far out.
I'm so tired of hearing about AI.
Until it's no longer true