• AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    edit-2
    6 hours ago

    2. It’s about breaking the power of tech workers by reducing them from highly skilled specialists to interchangeable low-status workers whose job is to clean up botshit until it compiles. (Given that the machine does the real work and they’re just tidying up the output it generates when prompted, they naturally don’t merit high wages or indulgent perks, even if getting 30,000 lines of code regurgitated from the mashed-up contents of Github and Stack Overflow working is more cognitively tasking than writing that code from scratch would have been.)

    • Aceticon@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 hour ago

      It doesn’t matter what they claim if they simply can’t get the people to babysit the AI codebase or the AIs for less money than the original ones who didn’t have to deal with AIs and their output used to cost.

      As a pretty senior dev who spent a lot of my career as a contractor mainly coming in to unfuck code-bases seriously fucked up by a couple of cycles under less experienced people, if I was pitched work to unfuck AI work I would demand a premium for my services purelly because of it being far more more fucked up in far harder to follow ways than the work done by less experience humans (who at least are consistent in the mistakes they make and follow a specific pattern in how they work) even without any moral considerations (on principle I would probably just not take a contract with a company that had used AI like that).

      I mean, I can see their strategy work for junior devs, but that kind of reducing the power of specialized workers was already being done against junior devs using “outsourcing” as a threat.