ThePhysicist
Joined 13 years ago
Joined 13 years ago
So maybe the big revolution is that we won't have "big software" that tries to cater to all kinds of users but "small software" that is tailored perfectly to the needs of a single user.
Then again maybe that's where all software is heading, if AI can produce features on demand at infinite space there might no longer be specialized software, or at least not nearly as much, as people will just code their own solutions tailored perfectly to their use case.
On the weekend I wrote a full-fledged 3D planner where I modeled my whole house based on plans and written descriptions I handed to Claude, it runs in the browser, produces high quality renderings, has path tracing for realistic lighting and materials and builds real objects like windows based on specifications and blueprints, so you can actually see how stuff looks like (unlike with AI images where proportions are always off). For me it's way better than SketchUp and it works completely dialogue based and allows me to experiment with furniture, window styles, doors, colors etc. in a super intuitive way. There is software I could use for this but why bother at this point? This whole thing took me a few hours and maybe 10-20 € in AI credits to build. Why try to use open-source software where I need to wait weeks for a reply from a maintainer?
So I think these projects fundamentally misunderstand where software engineering is heading, they are trying to hold back the flood but that will only lead to them being left in the dust once people realize they no longer have to wait for maintainers to update their sanctioned software timeline for you. That said, I think it's also ok and maybe even beneficial to be very protective of your feature set. There will (at least for now) still be room for complex core software that can serve as a basis for AI modification, so from that perspective it might be good to keep the core really tight and fully audited. My little software project only exists because three.js and other libraries provide most of what I need as LLMs will not write everything from scratch in such a short amount of time.
Overall it's a good thing, I think we will see the big studios loose footing in the gaming market even more, with the whole Microsoft restructuring blood bath we can already see it, big studios and brands still have their exclusives for now but I imagine they will lose market share overall since there's just so much exceptional stuff being produced by indies, and a good indie game can be just as much fun as the most expensive AAA title.
So, while this is great and I think LLMs will accelerate materials science the main bottleneck isn't having enough promising candidate materials, I think we have a backlog of at least a few hundred candidates that are worth pursuing. Maybe some money that goes to data centers would better go into CVD machines.
But yeah I noticed how they play with your emotions, it's a bit creepy. Whenever it asks a hook question and I tell it "Actually I did X and Y" it will invariably go like "Wow that is such a brilliant and well thought out strategy, almost a stroke of genius!" (not literally but you get the idea). I guess they found out that people really like having their ego stroked, the other providers are also doing that to some degree (I assume since no one likes an unfriendly AI that makes you feel stupid) but Google really cranked that setting to 11.
That got me thinking that programming might be like that in the near future, it's still an impressive skill for a human to learn and master and it takes tremendous effort and the craft itself is beautiful, but economically it will just not matter anymore. And in the same way as the music industry today is bigger than it ever was and there's tremendous money in it but 95-99 % of highly talented musicians will never earn a decent wage with it, the software industry will be bigger than it ever was but the money will be highly concentrated in the hands of a few players. Maybe we will still have some rockstar programmers than can masterfully command legions of agents or that win the love of the crowd for their unique work, but most of us will be enjoying this craft as a creative hobby and will do other things for a living.
Then again, coming back to the music parable, for a long time "amateurs" can make music with software tools without having any talent or even knowing musical notation or anything about tempo. Does that make them musicians? So take solace in the fact that these people aren't programmers and never will be, they're just pushing buttons on a synth board watching the "music" that comes out. Mastering a skill, regardless of what it is, will still matter to people, it will just not be worthwhile economically for most of us. There are so many things in that category, running for example isn't worthwhile for most of us in an economic sense as you have to be at the top 0.1 % of runners to make a living with it, still it has tremendous benefits and brings enjoyment.
http://kiprotect.com https://github.com/adewes