We’ll get another slew of decades long court cases once one line of Oracle or Microsoft code proprietary code comes out of chatGPT.
We've never had glorified chatbots like GPT-3 or GPT-3.5. I'm not just praising GPT; I've myself casually run through a few simulations with a hotel chain receptionist and an executive. The technology looks very competent, and aside from cost savings, there's also the customer service quality aspect (consistency particularly) and the element of removing staff from abuse.
The biggest challenge is integrating language models with live data. Making customer data accessible to them is not a problem technically (prepending prompts), but it could be a GDPR problem if a third party like OpenAI is involved (having to hand over data to a third party might make the AI receptionists unappealing to some customers -- maybe, needs to be tried). The other aspect is letting the AI make changes in a data model. But there are ways to solve that as well. When these obstacles are resolved - and there is a lot of incentive to fix them now - a lot of customer-facing reception-type work can be outsourced to AI.
By the way, some hotels are already very interested in chatbots for reception work. There has been a lot of talk about that in some chains since about 2020. Old-style NLP bots, too. But of course, GPT-3 capabilities are very appealing.
I would not want to be a “take this UI and add a new field” coder right now.
First, there's the uselessness of entry-level engineers. They are hired for their growth potential (that every human has, but language models don't) and are expected to grow into mid-levels and seniors. In most of the sw industry, entry-level roles are also not terminal, which means that such an engineer must get promoted at least +1L to keep working in the company. Someone (or something) perpetually stuck at the entry level is a bad value proposition for a sw company.
Secondly, the code that language models produce is buggy. They can, on occasion, produce amazing code and even entire codebases. But this is an exception, not the rule. You can generally prototype something or get an idea for something from language models, but you can only push very little of that into production. What good is code you can't use? You still need an engineer to oversee the language model's outputs.
Overall, if some company replaced their juniors with AI, that would be incompetent management.
Of course. My comment was about 'less programmers' getting hired. Not the extreme of 'All programmers' getting replaced by ChatGPT as you read incorrectly.
Believing that programmers don't need to adapt and that managers won't need to reduce or do layoffs especially with programmers, is quite frankly a denial and delusion of what is going on with cutting costs in hiring too many of them in the first place.
Denial is the first step to acceptance and as I said before, less programmers will be hired with juniors and some seniors impacted.
More developers will get hired, because ChatGPT will not perform the higher function tasks most developers actually spend most of their time working on.
The reason this will happen, is because ChatGPT will be more efficient in performing the lower function tasks and there will be more of a need to put all that automatically created code into actual use, integrate it with Enterprise Package FooCPT, figure out what caused the product outage at 2am at night. And on and on and on.
Not to mention that ChatGPT will not be able to talk to your users about what they want next, convince your manager that that's the right thing to do and everything else that you need to do on top of the coding part to be a good developer.
What possibly will happen is that junior developers will have even harder time getting into the industry, because clueless PHBs will see ChatGPT doing all their work "for free". A few years later they're screwed, because nobody at the company knows how their applications work. Except ChatGPT...maybe.
Reads like what I said before. Some will be affected and less programmers will be needed,. Especially in particular, juniors and some seniors getting impacted.
I don't know where I said 'All jobs' as you once again brought out as you clear read incorrectly. I only said less programmers will be hired and these software engineering jobs will be more competitive.
The best course of action is to learn to adapt and it certainly applies to programmers. Pretending that they don't need to adapt is a delusion and denial of constant change. With or without AI.
Read a freaking newspaper once in a while.
But of course. Denying it all, and not adapting sure is a great way of coping with rapid changes. /s
