Loading video...

Video Failed to Load

There was a problem loading this video. This could be due to a temporary network issue or the video might be unavailable.

"The one thing that's going to be truly future proof is judgment. What is the biggest challenge when you have a thousand AI engineers writing code? AI slop. In an era when you can do everything, the question is which of these things matter. On the engineer side, it... is evaluating the code. Which of this code is even valuable? You can have AI engineers writing beautiful code that could be wrong, that could have bugs in it, that could be vulnerable. Someone needs to review it. Make sure to have a human review at some point, especially critical code that is in the core of your system. On the product side is judgment around what needs to be built and evaluating. And similarly in design, you have to have judgment around, does it make sense in the broader design system. I think this judgment is the number one thing that humans are going to bring in an era of infinite productivity."show more

Patrick OShaughnessy

311,754 subscribers

24,818 views • 5 months ago •via X (Twitter)

Education Science & Technology

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Comments

No comments available

Comments from the original post will appear here

Related Videos

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

AI is changing the software engineering craft. Anders Hejlsberg (Anders Hejlsberg) - creator of C#, TypeScript and industry legend - on why code review needs to get more enjoyable in response: #1 - AI is shifting the craft from writing code, to reviewing code: "In a sense, we're all turning into project managers. We can have an army of junior programmers, called agents, that will just spit out reams of code but someone's got to have the big picture and review all of that. And so, increasingly, our craft is going from one of writing the code, to one of reviewing the code and building the architecture of the code and overseeing the work. It's a different kind of craft. It's a different kind of enjoyment. I've always liked writing the code. To me that was the fulfilling part, seeing it work. In a way, AI robs a little bit of that, because I am less interested in reviewing code." #2 - The code review experience should be improved: "I think we could also make the process of reviewing code much more interesting than it is today. I mean, today, you see a list of diffs in alphabetical order and now it's up to you to make heads or tails of it. There are more pedagogical ways of presenting that. And you could have commentary generated by the AI that tells you what the changes are and whatever, and then tries to guide you along. So that symbiotic relationship, I think we need to work on that more and to keep the enjoyment in there."

The Pragmatic Engineer

39,011 views • 2 months ago

🚨ZUCK: "Probably in 2025, Meta, as well as other companies, will have an AI that can effectively be a mid-level engineer that you have at your company that can write code. In the beginning that will be very expensive to run, then at some point a lot of the code we have in our apps will be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers. In my opinion that will augment the people working on it. My view is that in the future people will be so much more creative and freed up to do crazy things."

🚨ZUCK: "Probably in 2025, Meta, as well as other companies, will have an AI that can effectively be a mid-level engineer that you have at your company that can write code. In the beginning that will be very expensive to run, then at some point a lot of the code we have in our apps will be built by AI engineers instead of people engineers. In my opinion that will augment the people working on it. My view is that in the future people will be so much more creative and freed up to do crazy things."

Autism Capital 🧩

1,666,486 views • 1 year ago

“Our biggest bottleneck is becoming the review of code, rather than the actual writing and generation of code.” Cisco CPO Jeetu Patel says code review is still super important though, because without human taste and judgment, code quickly turns into slop: “Every engineer on that team is now just a spec developer.” “They just build specs. They create markdown files. They give context to the model. They give context to the agent. And then the agent’s writing the code.” “I think, presumably, the review is going to get easier, too.” “You’ll have really crappy software that gets written if people aren’t paying attention to it. It doesn’t obviate the need for having taste, and having judgment, and having instinct, and making sure that you’re thinking about what you’re building."

“Our biggest bottleneck is becoming the review of code, rather than the actual writing and generation of code.” Cisco CPO Jeetu Patel says code review is still super important though, because without human taste and judgment, code quickly turns into slop: “Every engineer on that team is now just a spec developer.” “They just build specs. They create markdown files. They give context to the model. They give context to the agent. And then the agent’s writing the code.” “I think, presumably, the review is going to get easier, too.” “You’ll have really crappy software that gets written if people aren’t paying attention to it. It doesn’t obviate the need for having taste, and having judgment, and having instinct, and making sure that you’re thinking about what you’re building."

TBPN

11,289 views • 5 months ago

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dario Amodei just told software engineers exactly how long they have. Six to twelve months. Amodei: “I have engineers within Anthropic who say I don’t write any code anymore. I just let the model write the code, I edit it, I do the things around it.” The people building the most powerful AI in history have already stopped writing code. That is not a forecast. That is the current working condition inside the lab closest to the frontier. Amodei: “We might be six to 12 months away from when the model is doing most, maybe all, of what SWEs do end-to-end.” The tech industry spent a decade making software engineers its highest-paid, most protected class. That era has a last day now. When a model can execute an entire software build end-to-end, the ability to write syntax stops being a skill. It becomes a credential for a job that no longer exists. Amodei: “And then it’s a question of how fast does that loop close.” That is the sentence everyone skipped. The code was never the hard part. The hard part was everything around it. The model just learned everything around it. Writing the code is already nearly gone. Testing is next. Deployment is next. When all three collapse into a single autonomous execution loop, the machine no longer needs a human in the chain at all. The corporation or sovereign state that closes that loop first does not gain a competitive advantage. It gains a category of speed that biological engineers cannot match, track, or reverse. That is not disruption. That is replacement at a systems level. Amodei is not describing a future disruption. He is describing the current state of his own building. The loop is already closing. The only question is whether you are inside it or outside it when it seals.

Dustin

318,457 views • 4 months ago

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Rick Rubin tells Andrew Huberman how he deals with creative or writer’s block. He treats his work like a diary entry (and doesn’t worry about internal or external judgment): ➡️ “What's the cause of the block? The block is usually something that's either personal ("I'm not good enough") or it can be a confidence issue ("I don't have anything to say") or it could be...thinking about someone else ("nobody's going to like what I make"). Do you know what I'm saying? So, it's either fear of self-judgment or external judgment. If you're making something with a freedom of "this is something I'm making for myself for now", that is all [you have to do]. It is a diary entry. Everything I make is a diary entry. The beauty of a diary entry is that I can write my diary entry and you can't tell me that my diary entry wasn't good enough. Or that [the diary entry] is not what I experienced. Of course it's what I experienced: I'm writing a personal diary for myself and no one else can judge if it is my experience of my life. Everything we make can be that: a personal reflection of who we are in that moment of time. It doesn't have to be the greatest you could ever do. It doesn't have to have any expectation that it's going to change the world. It doesn't have to sell a certain number of copies for any reason. It doesn't have any of those things at all. It is "I'm making this thing for me and I want to do it to the best of my ability and to where I feel good about it". [The work] is honest of where I'm at and if you're living in this world of just being honest to where you're at, there's nothing blocking you. There are no blocks. The blocks are all based on dealing with a different force or a different perception that is made up.” ⬅️

Trung Phan

1,619,350 views • 2 years ago

Chris Haynes on Giannis future with the Bucks and believes he could be moved at some point: "When the losses keep compiling, Giannis is going to have to keep fielding these questions. Thats why its getting to a point he is tired of hearing it. The Bucks have to make a decision. Do you waste a players talent when you know what that player desire is and what you promised him? I don't think this will go away anytime soon. I think he could be moved at some point. Which point? That i don't know. This team is not good. They have to make a miraculous turn around."

Chris Haynes on Giannis future with the Bucks and believes he could be moved at some point: "When the losses keep compiling, Giannis is going to have to keep fielding these questions. Thats why its getting to a point he is tired of hearing it. The Bucks have to make a decision. Do you waste a players talent when you know what that player desire is and what you promised him? I don't think this will go away anytime soon. I think he could be moved at some point. Which point? That i don't know. This team is not good. They have to make a miraculous turn around."

Heat Central

50,132 views • 5 months ago

Marc Andreessen says AI is hyper democratizing. “Is the future of the world going to be one or a small number of companies, or for that matter, governments or super AIs that kind of own and control everything?” “Or is this a technology that's going to diffuse out and be in everybody's hands?” “This is the time in which AI is actually hyper democratizing. It has spread to more individuals, both in the country and around the world in the shortest period of time of any new technology I think in history.” “The best AIs in the world are in the consumer products.” “This technology is going to be in everybody's hands. And everybody is going to be able to use it to optimize the things that they do, have it be a thought partner, assistant for building companies.” Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸

Marc Andreessen says AI is hyper democratizing. “Is the future of the world going to be one or a small number of companies, or for that matter, governments or super AIs that kind of own and control everything?” “Or is this a technology that's going to diffuse out and be in everybody's hands?” “This is the time in which AI is actually hyper democratizing. It has spread to more individuals, both in the country and around the world in the shortest period of time of any new technology I think in history.” “The best AIs in the world are in the consumer products.” “This technology is going to be in everybody's hands. And everybody is going to be able to use it to optimize the things that they do, have it be a thought partner, assistant for building companies.” Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸

a16z

79,935 views • 8 months ago

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Elon Musk on the importance of establishing the right values in AGI: “I don't think anyone's ultimately going to have control over digital superintelligence any more than, say, a chimp would have control over humans. Like chimps don't have control over humans. There's nothing they could do. But I do think that it matters how you build the AI and what kind of values you instill in the AI. And my opinion on AI safety is, the most important thing is that it be maximally truth-seeking, like that you don't force the AI to believe things that are false.”

Eva Fo𝕏 🦊 Claudius Nero's Legion

1,010,780 views • 8 months ago

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, says every company now runs on two kinds of capital, and leaking one of them is a one-way door: "This economy is going to be shaped going forward by both human capital and, let's call it, this token capital. That is true for Microsoft, that is true for a new startup, that's going to be true for any bank that's been in existence for 100 years." "The interplay between human capital and token capital, and compounding the returns of it, is what you need to do." "What is the tacit knowledge of an enterprise or a firm? It's the unique ways that you're able to operate, pass judgment, have taste." "The model, in some sense, is able to extract that tacit knowledge through human trajectories, and then code it in a set of weights in a model." "Every enterprise now needs to be more mindful about that interplay of humans and their digital estate working together, those trajectories training the models that they keep as IP versus leak it." "Because if you leak it, it's a one-way door. You're done in some sense." The moat was never the data sitting in your warehouse. It was the judgment your people apply to it, and AI now turns that judgment into weights you either own or hand away. Treat your tacit knowledge like a patent, not a prompt. The firms that pipe a hundred years of taste into someone else's frontier model are trading a permanent edge for a quarter of convenience.

Satya Nadella, CEO of Microsoft, says every company now runs on two kinds of capital, and leaking one of them is a one-way door: "This economy is going to be shaped going forward by both human capital and, let's call it, this token capital. That is true for Microsoft, that is true for a new startup, that's going to be true for any bank that's been in existence for 100 years." "The interplay between human capital and token capital, and compounding the returns of it, is what you need to do." "What is the tacit knowledge of an enterprise or a firm? It's the unique ways that you're able to operate, pass judgment, have taste." "The model, in some sense, is able to extract that tacit knowledge through human trajectories, and then code it in a set of weights in a model." "Every enterprise now needs to be more mindful about that interplay of humans and their digital estate working together, those trajectories training the models that they keep as IP versus leak it." "Because if you leak it, it's a one-way door. You're done in some sense." The moat was never the data sitting in your warehouse. It was the judgment your people apply to it, and AI now turns that judgment into weights you either own or hand away. Treat your tacit knowledge like a patent, not a prompt. The firms that pipe a hundred years of taste into someone else's frontier model are trading a permanent edge for a quarter of convenience.

Karl Mehta

25,146 views • 13 days ago

Chamath on how AI agents are making the "10x engineer" distinction disappear because the most efficient "code paths" are now obvious to everyone. Just as AI solved chess and removed the mystery of the best move, AI is doing the same for coding, making the process reductive and removing technical differentiation. "I'm going to say something controversial: I don't think developers anymore have good judgment. Developers get to the answer, or they don't get to the answer, and that's what agents have done. The 10x engineer used to have better judgment than the 1x engineer, but by making everybody a 10x engineer, you're taking judgment away. You're taking code paths that are now obvious and making them available to everybody. It's effectively like what happened in chess: an AI created a solver so everybody understood the most efficient path in every single spot to do the most EV-positive (expected value positive) thing. Coding is very similar in that way; you can reduce it and view it very reductively, so there is no differentiation in code." --- From The All-In Podcast YT channel (link in comment)

Chamath on how AI agents are making the "10x engineer" distinction disappear because the most efficient "code paths" are now obvious to everyone. Just as AI solved chess and removed the mystery of the best move, AI is doing the same for coding, making the process reductive and removing technical differentiation. "I'm going to say something controversial: I don't think developers anymore have good judgment. Developers get to the answer, or they don't get to the answer, and that's what agents have done. The 10x engineer used to have better judgment than the 1x engineer, but by making everybody a 10x engineer, you're taking judgment away. You're taking code paths that are now obvious and making them available to everybody. It's effectively like what happened in chess: an AI created a solver so everybody understood the most efficient path in every single spot to do the most EV-positive (expected value positive) thing. Coding is very similar in that way; you can reduce it and view it very reductively, so there is no differentiation in code." --- From The All-In Podcast YT channel (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

832,427 views • 4 months ago

‼️ Dr. Kelly Victory says Covid mandates violated the Nuremberg Code. “We codified this in the Nuremberg Code after the Second World War.” “The Nuremberg Code says you may not mandate, coerce, or otherwise, by fear of reprisal, compel someone to participate in a medical experiment.” “It doesn't have to be an actual written mandate.” “If you say to somebody, you’re going to lose your job… you won’t be able to go to school… that is fear of reprisal.” “That is coercion.” “That is clearly… a gross violation of the Nuremberg Code.”

‼️ Dr. Kelly Victory says Covid mandates violated the Nuremberg Code. “We codified this in the Nuremberg Code after the Second World War.” “The Nuremberg Code says you may not mandate, coerce, or otherwise, by fear of reprisal, compel someone to participate in a medical experiment.” “It doesn't have to be an actual written mandate.” “If you say to somebody, you’re going to lose your job… you won’t be able to go to school… that is fear of reprisal.” “That is coercion.” “That is clearly… a gross violation of the Nuremberg Code.”

Paul White Gold Eagle

11,898 views • 2 months ago

Elon Musk: ”The tax code is, you could fill this room with tax credits. Only an AI could even understand the tax code. Maybe. We want to have a tax code you can actually read as a human. I’m very much in favor of small government. We want minimal government action and maximum freedom for the people, and that is what leads to the highest level of prosperity.”

Elon Musk: ”The tax code is, you could fill this room with tax credits. Only an AI could even understand the tax code. Maybe. We want to have a tax code you can actually read as a human. I’m very much in favor of small government. We want minimal government action and maximum freedom for the people, and that is what leads to the highest level of prosperity.”

Taya Bass

17,625 views • 12 days ago

Reviewing AI-generated code is the new bottleneck. Writing code was slow before. Now, in a few minutes, you can generate virtually unlimited lines of code using AI. But developers are now spending 70% of their time checking that code. That's the new bottleneck. I've been using Cline, and they have a feature that actually helps with this: You can click a button and have Cline generate an inline explanation for every single line of AI-generated code. Take a look at the attached video. What it does: 1. You can read the code and the explanation together 2. You don't lose context while reviewing code 3. You understand the "why" behind each change And here is the best part: It works on any git diff. You can use it to review PRs, understand commits from other people, or catch up on a codebase you haven't touched in a while.

Reviewing AI-generated code is the new bottleneck. Writing code was slow before. Now, in a few minutes, you can generate virtually unlimited lines of code using AI. But developers are now spending 70% of their time checking that code. That's the new bottleneck. I've been using Cline, and they have a feature that actually helps with this: You can click a button and have Cline generate an inline explanation for every single line of AI-generated code. Take a look at the attached video. What it does: 1. You can read the code and the explanation together 2. You don't lose context while reviewing code 3. You understand the "why" behind each change And here is the best part: It works on any git diff. You can use it to review PRs, understand commits from other people, or catch up on a codebase you haven't touched in a while.

Santiago

64,399 views • 7 months ago

🔥🔥🔥 from Revealed Apologetics “At some point, the orthodox apologist is going to have to give reasons…they are evaluating the church by prior standards of judgment, and when they do that, the person is standing outside the church’s authority in order to determine whether the church’s authority is valid. Guess what? That’s private judgment.”

🔥🔥🔥 from Revealed Apologetics “At some point, the orthodox apologist is going to have to give reasons…they are evaluating the church by prior standards of judgment, and when they do that, the person is standing outside the church’s authority in order to determine whether the church’s authority is valid. Guess what? That’s private judgment.”

Lizzie Marbach

20,259 views • 28 days ago

peptides can’t be regulated. trying to is like regulating code. 100 million can be synthesized. the value is in the AI that knows which one you need. that system is a digital twin of your body. this is Palantir at $7. same thesis. same upside.

peptides can’t be regulated. trying to is like regulating code. 100 million can be synthesized. the value is in the AI that knows which one you need. that system is a digital twin of your body. this is Palantir at $7. same thesis. same upside.

Antonio Linares

322,556 views • 3 months ago

AI agents keep placing “landmines” in the code. Dax Raad(dax), creator of OpenCode, on why the human feedback loop kept code quality high: Dax: "We're shipping way more hacks in places where we should have just rethought the whole system from ground up or redesigned it and refactored it to make it more flexible. So I think our judgment is just off." Gergely: "Does this have to do that when I’m making a hack as an engineer, pre-AI, I know I'm making a hack. I'm thinking about it, I feel bad about it... there's kind of like a little bit of prickle there. Is it just that the agents just do it? They don't have feelings and they also suppress the effort, suppress the thinking.” Dax: "Yeah, exactly. I think the way you put it is exactly right, that prickle, that feeling that you get, it's muted now because it's kind of like you've made someone else deal with the problem. The problem is still there and the landmines are still going to blow up on you eventually, but you don't feel that bad feeling as much anymore. So your judgment is skewed. You're not getting that feedback loop."

AI agents keep placing “landmines” in the code. Dax Raad(dax), creator of OpenCode, on why the human feedback loop kept code quality high: Dax: "We're shipping way more hacks in places where we should have just rethought the whole system from ground up or redesigned it and refactored it to make it more flexible. So I think our judgment is just off." Gergely: "Does this have to do that when I’m making a hack as an engineer, pre-AI, I know I'm making a hack. I'm thinking about it, I feel bad about it... there's kind of like a little bit of prickle there. Is it just that the agents just do it? They don't have feelings and they also suppress the effort, suppress the thinking.” Dax: "Yeah, exactly. I think the way you put it is exactly right, that prickle, that feeling that you get, it's muted now because it's kind of like you've made someone else deal with the problem. The problem is still there and the landmines are still going to blow up on you eventually, but you don't feel that bad feeling as much anymore. So your judgment is skewed. You're not getting that feedback loop."

The Pragmatic Engineer

236,973 views • 1 month ago

🇺🇸 Elon says xAI’s mission is to understand the universe: “Humans will be in charge of AI. I think what we can do is make sure that AI has values that allow intelligence to be propagated into the universe. xAI’s mission is: understand the universe. So what things are necessary to understand the universe? You have to be curious, and you have to exist, so you increase the amount of intelligence in the universe.” Source: Cheeky Pint Podcast, Elon Musk

🇺🇸 Elon says xAI’s mission is to understand the universe: “Humans will be in charge of AI. I think what we can do is make sure that AI has values that allow intelligence to be propagated into the universe. xAI’s mission is: understand the universe. So what things are necessary to understand the universe? You have to be curious, and you have to exist, so you increase the amount of intelligence in the universe.” Source: Cheeky Pint Podcast, Elon Musk

Mario Nawfal

15,993 views • 5 months ago

After reaching AI-native terminal velocity we are swamped in code review. The core insight is that as long as you can write code in parallel you will continue to be stuck until you can review it in parallel. I was surprised by how quickly this became my daily driver for not just review code, but writing it as well.

After reaching AI-native terminal velocity we are swamped in code review. The core insight is that as long as you can write code in parallel you will continue to be stuck until you can review it in parallel. I was surprised by how quickly this became my daily driver for not just review code, but writing it as well.

Evan Boyle

23,954 views • 5 months ago

Is Traditional Software Engineering Dead? “Does this mean that traditional software engineering is dead? Absolutely not. Software engineers—even the ones who are not necessarily tuning or training AI models—these are now among the most leveraged people on earth. Sure, the guys who are training and tuning models are even more leveraged because they’re building the tool set that software engineers are using. But software engineers still have two massive advantages on you. First, they think in code, so they actually know what’s going on underneath. And all abstractions are leaky. So when you have a computer programming for you—when you have Claude Code or equivalent programming for you—it’s going to make mistakes. It’s going to have bugs. It’s going to have suboptimal architecture. So it’s not going to be quite right. And someone who understands what’s going on underneath will be able to plug the leaks as they occur. So if you want to build a well-architected application, if you want to be able to even specify a well-architected application, if you want to be able to make it run at high performance, if you want it to do its best, if you want to catch the bugs early, then you’re going to want to have a software engineering background. The traditional software engineer is going to be able to use these tools much better. And there are still many kinds of problems in software engineering that are out of scope for these AI programs today. The easiest way to think about those is problems that are outside of their data distribution. For example, if they need to do a binary sort or reverse a linked list, they’ve seen countless examples of that, so they’re extremely good at it. But when you start getting out of their domain—where you have to write very high-performance code, when you’re running on architectures that are novel or brand new, when you’re actually creating new things or solving new problems, then you still need to get in there and hand code it. At least until either there are so many of those examples that new models can be trained on them, or until these models can sufficiently reason at even higher levels of abstraction and crack it on their own… And remember: there is no demand for average. The average app—nobody wants it, at least as long as it’s not filling some niche that is filled by a superior app. The app that is better will win essentially a hundred percent of the market. Maybe there’s some small percentage that will bleed off to the second-best app because it does some little niche feature better than the main app, or it’s cheaper, or something of the sort. But generally speaking, people only want the best of anything. So the bad news is there’s no point in being number two or number three—like in the famous Glengarry Glen Ross scene where Alec Baldwin says, “First place gets a Cadillac Eldorado, second place gets a set of steak knives, and third place you’re fired.” That’s absolutely true in these winner-take-all markets. That’s the bad news: You have to be the best at something if you want to win. However, the set of things you can be best at is infinite. You can always find some niche that is perfect for you, and you can be the best at that thing. This goes back to an old tweet of mine where I said, “Become the best in the world at what you do. Keep redefining what you do until this is true.” And I think that still applies in this age of AI.”

Naval

849,246 views • 4 months ago

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Sam Altman's new interview: AI should not be designed to pursue goals that are disconnected from human needs. People must remain at the center of AI development. “I have no interest in building a super-smart AI that accomplishes some non-human goals. People should react. People should say, ‘Hey, this is what I want, and this is what I do not want.’ I do not think the issue is that we have failed to explain the benefits. We say, ‘AI is going to cure a bunch of diseases,’ and people say, ‘Okay, that is great, but that is not really my question. My question is: What is my role in the future? What is my economic future? What is my agency? How do I know that my kids and my family will still be able to have fulfilling, creative expression, struggle, drive the world forward, grow, and do this thing together in a way that has worked for a long time?’ When people in AI say, ‘Sure, there are going to be no jobs,’ or ‘50% of jobs are going to go away,’ or ‘90% of jobs are going to go away,’ and ‘AI is going to be smarter than you at everything,’ and ‘We will give you some basic income, but you are not really going to have a role,’ that is horrible. And by the way, if an AI company says, ‘Maybe we are going to destroy all the jobs, and we will be the most valuable company in the world,’ people should look at you like, ‘Yeah, that is a terrible message.’ I do not think the problem is that we have not articulated the upsides. I think people actually believe us. They hear, ‘AI may cure your cancer,’ and they think, ‘That sounds great.’ I think we, as an industry, have failed to explain how people stay in control of determining the future at every step, and how people can still have a meaningful life in all the ways we care about.” ---- From "CNBC Television" YouTube channel, (link in comment)

Rohan Paul

79,028 views • 1 month ago