LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Could be worse. Biotech has sleep walked into being able to genetically engineer babies and 75 years ago physicists trying to end a war figured out how to destroy the planet.0
-
Isn’t the issue that AI could take on the role of more skilled jobs and that the work it will leave behind is the more menial stuff that requires human input? I think that’s where it differs to previous mechanisation (previous technology has also created highly skilled jobs it its design and manufacture plus the maintenance side).rick_chasey said:If AI means a lot of the menial stuff can be done automatically then so much the better.
There are tonnes of complaints about too many people working bullish!t jobs > hopefully AI will relieve us of the burden.0 -
-
I get that AI is just coming about when there is the highest proportion ever of old people who need looking after, and obviously there is limited scope for improving the effectiveness of those jobs
Luckily our great leaders are really focused on enabling those of working age to maximise their poten…oh never mind.0 -
90 day suspension
0 -
Programmers should be very worried about AI - or at least working out how to make use of it. For a lot of tasks, the skill is going to be in priming the prompt to get the best answer rather than knowing how to code.0
-
My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.0 -
Need a butt and dribble wiping bot!rick_chasey said:I get that AI is just coming about when there is the highest proportion ever of old people who need looking after, and obviously there is limited scope for improving the effectiveness of those jobs
Luckily our great leaders are really focused on enabling those of working age to maximise their poten…oh never mind.1 -
The oldies tooDorset_Boy said:
Need a butt and dribble wiping bot!rick_chasey said:I get that AI is just coming about when there is the highest proportion ever of old people who need looking after, and obviously there is limited scope for improving the effectiveness of those jobs
Luckily our great leaders are really focused on enabling those of working age to maximise their poten…oh never mind.
0 -
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.0 -
I was wondering what that had to do with AI, then remembered which thread this issecretsqirrel said:90 day suspension
0 -
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.0 -
Seems Boris would have had much less than 90 days suspension, but more than 10 days, had he kept his gob shut over the last week or so!
Seems the report is pretty damning, though the findings won't come as a surprise to many given history history with the truth!0 -
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.0 -
There's more than a hint of the approach taken against Lance Armstrong here. USADA knew that Lance was highly unlikely to go to court to get a life ban reduced to 8 years etc. as once in court, he would have been under oath and unable to control the line of questioning. I read various sources that argued that the USADA sanction was unduly harsh, despite Lance's utter tw*ttishness and thus potentially reducible.Dorset_Boy said:Seems Boris would have had much less than 90 days suspension, but more than 10 days, had he kept his gob shut over the last week or so!
Seems the report is pretty damning, though the findings won't come as a surprise to many given history history with the truth!
The privileges Cttee knew that Boris would never subject himself to the indignities of a HoC process to try and clear his name, as in such a process he'd be required to be truthful, so they could "throw him under the bus". The Lab and SNP members of the Cttee proposed expulsion from the HoC, but the Tory members would only go as far as a 90 day suspension (which is still a remarkable kick in the nadgers to their erstwhile "World King").0 -
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.0 -
Dorset_Boy said:
Seems Boris would have had much less than 90 days suspension, but more than 10 days, had he kept his gob shut over the last week or so!
Seems the report is pretty damning, though the findings won't come as a surprise to many given history history with the truth!
0 -
As ever the cover up is worse than the crime.Dorset_Boy said:Seems Boris would have had much less than 90 days suspension, but more than 10 days, had he kept his gob shut over the last week or so!
Seems the report is pretty damning, though the findings won't come as a surprise to many given history history with the truth!
If he’s just fessed up at the start, said it just shows the excellence of the British Public that they have more self control and that it was a humbling lesson blah blah, he’d still be PM
(Or of course, just not have done it)0 -
I for one am absolutely loving the Blue on Blue kicking off. The more halfwits who lash themselves to the sinking raft of Johnson's ego the better.
And Dorries presuming to tell people what a true Conservative is is just 👨🍳😘1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.0 -
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.
0 -
With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.TheBigBean said:
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.
0 -
1
-
If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.wallace_and_gromit said:
With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.TheBigBean said:
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
The next generations are supposed to be better.rjsterry said:
If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.wallace_and_gromit said:
With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.TheBigBean said:
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.0 -
I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.rjsterry said:
If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.wallace_and_gromit said:
With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.TheBigBean said:
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.
Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.0 -
(Quants didn’t blow up the banking system and there are still an absolute tonne of them in banking.)wallace_and_gromit said:
I was being slightly tongue in cheek, but during my professional life so much number crunching has been automated that you'd think there would be no need for human number crunchers any more. Yet there are veritable armies of number crunchers who find ways to do analysis that previous wasn't possible, or even conceived of. This new analysis then gets automated, and the cycle repeats itself.rjsterry said:
If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.wallace_and_gromit said:
With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.TheBigBean said:
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.
Whether this is a good thing for society is an open question. After all, the "quants" having too much spare time in the run up to the financial crisis led to them blowing up the banking system, but in terms of employment, the threat of automation is not necessarily going to be a problem.0 -
Sunak claiming wages are growing faster than ever is a big disingenuous when inflation is even higher.0
-
That would be the AI bots diverting the attention away from the miserable liar.veronese68 said:
I was wondering what that had to do with AI, then remembered which thread this issecretsqirrel said:90 day suspension
1 -
Even with CAD design packages of the past 20 odd year in my line of work and, no doubt, yours there has been an element of users accepting the output without being able to cast an eye over the results and sense check. It makes me worry about what will happen when AI becomes more prevalent.rjsterry said:
If it's outputs cannot be relied upon for factual accuracy (and that's my experience, too) then I'm not sure how it improves productivity.wallace_and_gromit said:
With my optimistic hat on re employment levels, I foresee a world where x people have been made unemployed after being replaced by ChatGPT, but 2x people are then needed to check ChatGPT's outputs.TheBigBean said:
Sounds quite useful. I asked it which restaurants were airside at CDG. It just made stuff up.kingstongraham said:
From the limited experiments I've done with the system/language I know most about, if I prompt ChatGPT with "write a report that displays sales orders created in the last 5 days that are not rejected and are relevant for delivery but have not started the delivery process", it will write the code (and did it correctly, with decent naming conventions). And give an explanation of what it had done.TheBigBean said:
Doesn't it just become another language?morstar said:
This basically. So you still need people with knowledge about the software and business process.kingstongraham said:
It takes the actual nuts and bolts of coding out of the equation. Essentially if you can write a detailed functional requirements document, AI can do the rest. Still need someone to analyse and determine requirements though. Shifts the balance away from specialist houses.rick_chasey said:
Forgive my ignorance, but wouldn’t you just shift to implementing AI as opposed to software?morstar said:My job is skilled but 100% in the firing line of Microsoft and AI.
This is plainly obvious to me but many people in the same industry don’t agree. I think they’re very naive.
So I help businesses implement business software. Microsoft is deskilling every single aspect of the work in a clear and visible way. I don’t think this is a bad thing. They are also introducing AI to help configure the software.
Their aim is to make it quicker and easier to setup the software with less reliance on partner organisations like the ones I work for. They want more customers quicker and to reduce reliance on 3rd parties. It all makes perfect business sense.
Personally, I still think business expertise is an essential part but my role is massively decreased to key areas where I can actually add value. There will be a fraction of the people currently doing my role in years to come. The only question on my mind is how quickly it all happens. I am making a point of being ahead of the game in breadth of knowledge. Many aren’t.
But fewer of them can do more work.
For more complex requirements, I'd need to specify more details of what I needed, obviously, and I would need to know what to ask for. But it's functional language, not technical.0
