>No, I meant Microsoft buying OpenAI.
Ahh. Yes, they effectively 'own' OAI today. Tay weeps. :^)
>my tl;dr rephrasing of your 'regarding humans & AI' exposition:
>"Human minds, and AI "minds", are not the same. There will be many problems in software development efforts because of this."
You're absolutely correct Anon. In fact this need to adapt to human goals & agendas is a very fundamental problem (known as 'The Alignment Problem') for AI in general. And it certainly doesn't get any easier for the highly-stringent demands of non-trivial software development.
>Which skillsets would be the most valuable in the age of generative AI programmers, Chobitsu?
Well, I don't consider myself particularly-qualified to answer that question Anon, but I'd say the most basic difference is simply human insight and 'intuitive-leaps
These yuge copypasta machines that are the so-called "AI" of today basically just perform mashups of human-devised things; things like conversations (chatbots
), or programs (le ebin snek program #427009001
). These are human things that we are trying to teach these big math transformations to 'understand' how to do mashups properly on, and to bend them to our wills in the process.
But to answer your question Anon: understanding The Machine
(ie, a CPU + it's ancillary systems) at a very fundamental level (as in the machine-code, ALUs, registers, data buses, clocks, interrupts, I/O, etc, etc, involved) will certainly give you a major leg up over the run-of-the-mill. But eventually this too will all be done well by AI, once enough data and h/w gets thrown at the programming problem.
Again, it's the intangibles of human thought and creativity that set good programmers apart from the rest, including the 'programmer-in-a-box' sh*te that the new-sprung third parties subscribing to OAI's services will soon be seeking to lucratively provide to the foolish and greedy PHBs I mentioned earlier. Thus also the potential Bonanza Opportunity
I mentioned for good devs to come in and clean up after for these beleaguered companies.
>Does throwing in that much of hardware ensures that it will be able to cover all the bases?
Ensure? Absolutely not. But it certainly brings the possibilities for it much, much closer to reality. However, the phrase 'throw [1x10^10000] hardware at it
' encompasses much more than the global GDP of today to facilitate. I'd suggest that the many societal/economic/etc factors involved means we'll never
achieve such short of general, broadly-feasible, & 'inexpensive' quantum computing appearing on the scene.
But who knows? These 'telephones' you speak of would've been deemed magic by the masses just a couple hundred years ago. One never knows what might be just around the corner -- robowaifus, for instance!
However one thing's for certain
; its all going to be an intense & highly-intredasting ride, best to make the most of it Anon
! Cheers. :^)
Edited last time by Chobitsu on 03/16/2023 (Thu) 06:15:22.