That's because you're getting left behind. The technology is outpacing you because most likely you're not using it right. Also likely you're not in an environment that pushes you to use it right so you just give it half assed attempts, never putting the initial effort to up your game with AI.
At my company, if you don't use AI, you're productivity will be much slower than everyone else and that will result in you getting fired. The expectation is 3-4 PRs a day per person.
Bro no need to be snarky. You're not useless to the economy. You're in the process of becoming more and more useless. Unlikely to be completely useless but AI is for sure eating away your job. Denying it and acting like this is just delusional coping.
I'm not singling you out. This applies to all of us, you, me, everyone.
I think you captured yet. Not many people agree but the real world metrics speak the truth, and that is trying and failing faster gets you further then methodological planning and structured approaches.
There IS experimental evidence on this and anyones anecdotal opinion is instantly blown to smithereens by the fact that this was tested and producing code faster is provably better.
We're only not letting go because it's not quite there yet. Once AI is there, someone will let go, and to keep up with everyone else, you'll let go too.
Wait a bit longer and the next thing that's let go after you "let go" is you.
I tried watching this (I grew up with it remembering it's on TV) and while it's watchable, it's not that enjoyable in modern times because it hasn't aged very well at all in terms of the FX so it's hard to get immersed.
I know if I stick with it, it will probably get good (doctor who was like this for me) but it's a huge slog.
I feel Star Trek TNG lucked out with all the choices they made. The designs and effects generally hold up.
I don't think caring much about special effects is necessarily universal. Good special effects add almost nothing to my enjoyment, and bad special effects detract almost nothing.
TNG looked like crap compared to modern standards, and why they spent a lot of money to restore and fix it. Was expensive/unprofitable enough that no other shows got the treatment. There were comparisons on youtube.
I'm talking about more then just the remaster. On a fundamental level the effects of TNG can hold up today. Babylon 5 can't. This is for both the space effects and the technology effects in the space ships themselves.
The LCAR interface still looks modern and it's way better than the babylon 5 CRT screens.
You can still see the CRTs behind LCARS, but I have to admit it is pretty cool in general. They had a bigger budget.
But for space scenes, IMO the later episodes of B5 were amazing and beautiful. They just need a modern render and to turn down the saturation. TNG era ships and camera framing were much more boring, partly due to the smaller story.
I'm gonna give it a shot. And by give it a shot I mean watch all 5 seasons lol. But I still think TNG just looks better. I get that the space scenes were less epic and the scenes are less dynamic. That restriction enabled effects that were more grounded in fidelity so it holds up with the CG of today.
I do know they used CRTs in TNG but not often. Most of the LCARS stuff was just literally backlit plastic panels. Because of that it's much less jarring whereas babylon 5 I think the CRT screens were used everywhere.
Ok, keep in mind the first season of B5 the lighting of ships is very bright and doesn’t look very good. But S2 with the new captain I think they default to nighttime and it looks better as well.
Have you ever thought about the fact that 2 years ago AI wasn't even good enough to write code. Now it's good enough.
Right now you state the current problem is: "requiring my constant supervision and frequent intervention and always trying to sneak in subtle bugs or weird architectural decisions"
But in 2 years that could be gone too, given the objective and literal trendline. So I actually don't see how you can hold this opinion: "I'm not even freaking about my career, I'm freaking about how much today's "almost good" LLMs can empower incompetence and how much damage that could cause to systems that I either use or work on." when all logic points away from it.
We need to be worried, LLMs are only getting better.
That's easy. When LLMs are good enough to fully replace me and my role in the society (kind of above-average smart, well-read guy with university education and solid knowledge of many topics, basically like most people here) without any downsides, and without any escape route for me, we'll probably already be at the brink of a societal collapse and that's something I can't really prepare for or even change.
All evidence points to the world changing. You're not worrying because worrying doesn't solve anything. Valid.
More people need to be upfront about this reasoning. Instead of building irrational scaffolds saying AI is not a threat. AI is a threat, THAT is the only rational conclusion. Give the real reason why you're not worried.
I'm all for this. But it's the delusion and denialism of people not wanting to face reality.
Like I have compassion, but I can't healthily respect people who try so hard to rewrite reality so that the future isn't so horrifying. I'm a SWE and I'm affected too, but it's not like I'm going to lie to myself about what's happening.
It's easy to fall into a negative mindset because the justification is real and what we see is just the beginning.
Obviously we are not at a point where developers aren't needed. But One developer can do more. And that is a legitimate reason to higher less developers.
The impending reality of the upward moving trendline is that AI becomes so capable that it can replace the majority of developers. That future is so horrifying that people need to scaffold logic to unjustifiy it.
>Only a fool would think we aren't potentially on the verge of something truly revolutionary here. But only a fool would also be certain that the revolution has already happened, or that e.g. AGI is necessarily imminent.
This sentence sounds contradictory. You're a fool to not think we're on the verge of something revolutionary and you are a fool if you think something revolutionary like AGI is on the verge of happening?
But to your point if "revolutionary" and "agi" are different things, I'm certain the "revolution" has already happened. ChatGPT was the step function change and everything else is just following the upwards trendline post release of chatGPT.
Anecdotally I would say 50% of developers never code things by hand anymore. That is revolutionary in itself and by the statement itself it has already literally happened.
At my company, if you don't use AI, you're productivity will be much slower than everyone else and that will result in you getting fired. The expectation is 3-4 PRs a day per person.
reply