Oh no no no no no no

Cool. Maybe I'll have it write up a few projects to put on my resume.

20 years from now

>but the truth is most are like monkeys just reapplying ready made solutions they memorized.
when I joined my current company last year I was baffled at the amount of code copied from blogs, all the "clever" tricks you think would take some time and experience to come up with are just copied from the internet, it's very depressing.
we did a few clash of code on codingame during lunch time and I was very unimpressed by the time it took these people to come up with a solution, at this moment I understood why my salary was higher than the tech lead...

Oh, in that case I doubt any programmer today should be worried, even if they're just starting out.

I'm doing my masters degree on a sub-field of AI and I've got to say, I think all of this "We will automate away every job" is bullshit. What people call "artificial intelligence" today is just neural networks, and what neural networks are is just an approximation of an arbitrary function. That's all, a function. Meaning "Given X inputs, what is the correct output?" There is no creativity involved or anything like that. All of the magic that gets put on top of it is usually to make the network learn faster, generalize more accurately or stuff like that.

Back in 2016 when this shit was getting hyped, the narrative was that "These things are super powerful, in 2019 we're gonna have cars that drive themselves, computer vision is amazing, we're headed to a post-scarcity society" and so on. What jobs ACTUALLY got automated since then? Don't get me wrong, NNs gave us new things like computer vision, speech-to-text, better graphics, recommendation systems, better chess bots, protein folding models, and these are all fucking amazing, but no one lost their job to a neural network, not even doctors or lawyers.

Furthermore since they need data to be trained on, they can only solve OLD problems, that have already been solved somewhat. They will never be able to make something new, they need data to be trained on.

Imagine thinking the current wealthy elites, who are currently basically pushing for bringing back sumptuary laws under the guise of fighting climate change, would ever allow a post-scarcity society to exist.

Well, it could be post-scarcity for them, with everything automated, and then be hell for the rest, I don't see a problem with that.
But you're right that it's not going to happen, the field is deteriorating. People are now worried about the AI being too "truth-based", research in some fields is starting to be hampered because the results go against the establishment. This is how you kill progress, what makes a successful student isn't competence anymore, it's being good at bureaucracy and doing what you're told.

Attached: Biggest_worry_in_AI.jpg (741x626, 76.3K)

>as good as an average human programmer
That's just a different way to say it's shit.

r8 my weld

Attached: 1mmemt.jpg (4160x3120, 817.82K)

I don't understand how anyone can think it's far fetched at this point that AI will become complex enough to eventually do all the things being foretold. It already exists in a rudimentary state and anyone that thinks how things are today are at all indicative of how they will be in 50 years is dumb as shit.

But it decipher what it has to do from dumbass manager and clients and then decipher what they don't like?

>50 years...
Ago people thought we'll be living on the Moon and flying around Jupiter and definitely not dealing with assworm faggot problems or niggers looting cities.

Predictions. Get it?

>I do not believe that smart, resourceful people will ever be obsolete
They were obsolete for thousands of years because what mattered more than smarts was wealth and power. That got thrown around a bit in the 20th century, but now that we're quickly returning back to everything being owned by a handful of people, smarts and resourcefulness aren't as important anymore, wealth and power are the most important things once again.

Good thing for China I guess since they'll only censor AI if it goes against the Party ie they'll censor it politically, but won't censor it scientifically.

>basically pushing for bringing back sumptuary laws under the guise of fighting climate change
Who's doing this?

>I don't understand how anyone can think it's far fetched at this point that AI will become complex enough to eventually do all the things being foretold
It's a matter of actually knowing what's going on in the field and making an informed decision. We simply don't have the tools yet to automate everything, we'll need a completely new method of generalizing other than just an arbitrary function. And that's nowhere near close from happening, you'd need not only new discoveries in Math, but also figure out how to apply it to programs and then actually implement it. If it's even possible in the first place, it will take much more than 50 years.

You're talking just in terms of vague impressions and trends, but when you look closely into the detail is when you can actually say something of value.

Yes, certainly living in space is just as wild an idea as AI growing in complexity and utility over time, as it already has. I'm sure there weren't idiots saying we would never fly or go to space either.

I just want a butlerian jihad

codemonkeybros, is it over?