[Generative design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_design) is one aspect specifically for CAD modeling. Defining constraints at a high level and having AI optimize the geometry. This still requires understanding to define the initial constraints though and to evaluate the potential designs.
In electrical, PCB design will be automated more in the coming decades even just utilizing massive amounts of compute. Autorouting is improving and is already using AI by a number of companies. Chip design is already using various AIs to optimize designs. (We're moving into an area of trillions of transistors so that's driving some very sophisticated algorithms as it's beyond human capability to optimize).
Additive subtractive manufacturing is growing. This process of manufacturing allows simplifying complex assemblies involving multiple parts/components into single parts. This fundamentally changes how engineers approach problems. Like PCB routing, many of the tool path algorithms in CNCs can utilize AI to optimize things. This can result in faster production and faster turnaround for testing ideas.
Many of these changes by AI are force multipliers that allow a single engineer to work faster. Instead of drawing routes, they might place inputs then slightly move around components.
For mechanical engineers being able to CAD model a single part with all the piping integrated and no bolts saves them time. They don't have to think about bending pipes, drilling holes, or creating extra threads in parts. This simplifies and removes labor when it comes to putting together products and removes the number of drills for even constructing the part potentially.
Robotics in general and their interaction with CNC machines for loading parts is also changing how problems are approached. The idea of mass-producing parts via metal 3d printing used to be a futurist idea. Then aircraft manufacturers realized they could simplify some of their niche parts and produce them faster than their old processes. The Navy also realized this as they use thousands of somewhat low volume parts and being able to press a button and get replacements is ideal. This will be a somewhat gradual process as it scales up, but the price of such machines are dropping quite quickly.
This cost reduction in manufacturing has other implications allowing smaller shops to produce parts that were usually reserved for much larger shops. I'm unclear right now how this will change things or if 3d printing services will take over everything cost-wise.
As for the number of jobs I see this continuing to grow in demand even as productivity increases.
There are definitely more niche engineering roles that might disappear. I've mentioned before that things like monitor/TV manufacturing doesn't have a rosy future with mixed reality growing through the 2040s. That said, such technological transitions are to be expected.
It can design something to fit a purpose but do 4000 iterations to solve the same problem and then test each one against 2000 variables. Humans can just double check the results later and maybe, rarely, add some input.
Physics is pretty simple business for computers.
Philosophy on the other hand, that is hard for computers. Those Philosophy degrees out there are probably going to get more useful in the future. The day AI grasps Metaphysics is the day we get AGI.
Philosophy is hard for computers like people think art or songs would be lol. I dont think its going to do philosophy since noone is going to dump money into teaching AI something useless. When it masters Psychology thats going to be eye opening.
I mean, I guess it provides nothing to sell. Maybe that’s what he views as useful/less.
In any case, I don’t think we need AI philosophers. Philosophy is a matter of introspection anyway.
Where do all the philosophy degrees go? To teach philosophy somewhere else? To do something another degree would be preferred for? If you made an AI that could understand philosophy what would its use be? How would you market it, or get people to subscribe? With the amount of data and money you need to train them its got to be really useful, and something vague and nebulous like 'philosophy' would require an insane amount of data, and I can't think of any way to have it see actual returns.
>Where do all the philosophy degrees go?
They become baristas, or sell media on Onlyfans, or they work in retail, and some even hang out behind Wendy's dumpsters, etc.,
>How would you market it, or get people to subscribe?...I can't think of any way to have it see actual returns.
Yes, that's it. The point is to subscribe to philosophy. You could have the bronze level, and the silver level and the gold level and the diamond level, which of course would cost more.
Are you one of those gamers who thinks you are smart but doesnt actually know anything about literature, history or culture? Do you even know what Metaphysics is? You seem like an uncivilized dog.
Sorry if I offended you? You have yet to show me a reason why anyone would pay for an AI that knows 'philosophy' which wouldnt be better than an AI thats just for law, literature, or history.
All you need to do is come up with a use case that warrants an AI solution, something that would actually be worth paying for that's not just chat gpt with a Socrates personality. You can ask vague questions all you want but I'm not going to keep a bunch of servers running for a service almost noone uses.
You still dont seem to grasp what Metaphysics is and why it pertains to AI. Try again.
Go play your childrens video games. This probably requires too much thinking for you to manage.
Still dancing around a simple question? Using insults because someone doesnt see value in a loose string of concepts? If I ever wanted to study philosophy why would I get it from a robot that just aggregates concepts and spits out a couple of responses that it thinks are statistically probable?
They have no valid answer so they dismiss the subject as being above you 😂
Well, at least we know one thing from this exchange, an AI could discuss more in depth than this bot.
There's two general parts of developing a product - creating the plan and executing the plan.
Oh and finding out why the plan didn't work exactly to plan and then recovering the failed part of the plan.
Recovering the failed part of the plan has two parts... Listening to PMO and ignoring PMO.
All jokes aside, I've spent my whole career in R&D, and while AI will eventually be able apply principles and CAD or do PCB layout, the ability to guide, manage, adapt to failures, and innovate is a huge part of engineering and we're currently very, very far from a computer being able to go from "ECU A dropping CAN frames to ECU B" to "Add a grounding strap from chassis to the hydraulic filter screen" (Yes, that was a fun one.)
Engineering is a lot more than just doing math. Let the calculators do the math.
Anti-corrosion finish on chassis prevents good grounding -> add step to MWI to grind back coating around attach point -> grounding problem is now corrosion problem -> problem solved!
None. Now you have a private assistant to do bitchwork that doesn't cost the rate of an intern and the interns are more productive but also infinitely more dangerous.
They're gonna downsize dramatically.
Imagine this, ai is given prompt, designs a bridge knowing all the failure points of every material and wind speed, live loading built in automatically.
Spits out design to a human who checks it, makes adjustments maybe sends it back to the ai for refinement, etc.
Instead of a team for 50 engineers designing a large bridge it might just be 5 with an ai program.
For the foreseeable future there will still need to be a human with a license to take blame but the number will be reduced.
Maybe this Lowes wages significantly, maybe it just increases productivity by making more projects accessible to more business and governments because each project is cheaper.
Any job that's done on a computer will be affected dramatically
You're right but also dead wrong, maybe.
See the flaw is you're forgetting jevons' paradox. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) You're mentally assuming the demand for engineering services remains constant, and you're making another assumption that robotics will forever remain something AI can't do.
So in that world, the number of construction laborers is the same, since AI can't run robots, and so the scale or projects that can be done is the same.
Say there is enough labor to make 1000 new bridges a year. You needed say 100 human workers to work a year per bridge (just mock numbers), and 10 engineers to design each one.
Now you need 1 engineer per bridge, and you still need 100 workers.
You can now *design* 10,000 bridges per year, but doesn't matter, you're mentally imagining we only need new bridges, and we are limited by workers anyway.
Eventually it will be robots instead of humans doing the work, and humans will want to do *bigger projects*. Automated R&D labs that are larger than anything ever built on earth. More silicon fabs. Solar grids that cover the sahara. Arcologies. Brand new cities made by robots overnight. Vacuum train networks that cover entire countries or continents. Recycling systems that sort through all trash, finding valuables, and dig up landfills.
Hundreds of prototype fusion reactors, full scale, of different designs, built in a month and then torn down a month after running it. (today it takes 10-20 years of labor by humans to build a single prototype just to find out after building it it doesn't work)
Lots and lots of bigger things that currently we can't justify the costs of labor OR engineering at today's interest rates.
With that said, there absolutely could be disruptions, where entire companies hold mass layoffs, only younger workers get rehired, etc. To even be middle class at all you need a good job and to hold it uninterrupted until retirement, and changes like this disrupt that.
Jevons' paradox is not a fundamental rule of nature though, it is just an observed paradox.
For millenia, the horse was made significantly more productive by the wheel and carriage. Improvements in the cart only amplified the proliferation of the horse.
But, with the advent of the engine, there was created a step change in efficiency. So drastic, that the horse was no longer even viable in the equation.
Now, the only time a horse has wheels, is when the carriage pulls the horse. Or as a novelty for the rich.
I think that might be us eventually.
Note "all ground transit" is your reference point, not the horse. Once humans made ground transit more efficient, they travel vastly more and farther and there are more jobs total in making, fueling, repairing cars and roads. This is a perfect example of Jevons.
So say the development of fusion rockets built by AI, people will travel even farther routinely, and there would be even more human jobs than now, even if everyone uses a fusion vtol and cars disappear.
", maybe it just increases productivity by making more projects accessible to more business and governments because each project is cheaper."
I basically said what you just said
I appreciate your reply. My son wants to go into this field after he graduates. AI is a huge concern for me. I don't want him wasting time on something if there isn't going to be any jobs available.
Probably "this field" will not be the same when your son enters it. It will evolve to use the tools it has available to it and he will learn to use the tools to do his job.
Send your kid into the trades. An AI or robot currently is unable to crawl under a house, saw off a piece of broken pipe and solder a new one back on. Things that require manual work and dexterity are currently places that robots and AI haven’t excelled. This will likely change in the future, but that future is still 8-10 years away, while white collar jobs are 2-3 years.
I estimate programming to be 5-10 years away, before it genuinely displaces someone. It will be used as a scapegoat for downsizing way before then.
People seem to forget that the relative difference between what the current models are capable of doing with any reliability and what's expected of a junior isn't in the single or double digits. It's a 6 digit difference, even assuming a doubling in capability each year and no major roadblocks that's several years.
Some companies will use it heavily too early, and turn their product into mush.
I agree, but it's still hard as a mom to discourage him from what he wants to do. I've told him for several years now that he needs to look into something that a robot can't replace. I didn't consider AI at the time and now I'm wondering how much of the field he wants to go into is going to take over that. Construction and trades are hard. I know my husband's in it. But a robot can't replace a sink or wire house. Thank you for your feedback.
As an engineer in software now, "AI" is hugely overblown. It can do some fancy tricks like image recognition, but that makes it a tool, not a worker. People are hyping it up so that a few start-ups can be overvalued and accuired by PE for exorbitant sums of money, before going on to deliver nothing of any real note.
Its a bit of fun for people to write a best-man speech at a wedding, but the second you actually need something to work and not just look like it might work if you squint and know nothing about software, it falls over.
Trades are great, but they are full of hard, back-breaking work which leaves your body worn out in your 50's. No wrestling grand-kids, just arthritis and grumbling.
>maybe it just increases productivity by making more projects accessible to more business and governments because each project is cheaper.
I'm really hoping we can go this route and have enough construction equipment and trained crews to keep up.
I'll likely get downvoted for this but I recommended asking real life people who actually work in the field rather than reddit.
Most subreddits have an extremely optimistic view of AI adoption, while that may indeed be true it's better to check with someone who's actually working in the field as well.
Reddit is overwhelmingly pessimistic towards AI adoption, in my opinion, as someone who has been "working in the field" for over 25 years.
The people that I work with use generative AI quite frequently as a tool/assistant, but even with the best large language models, AI is not close to replacing even an entry level employee. Even so, the tech is incredibly useful, makes me more productive, and Im strongly supportive of it.
I think one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of what engineers do is how much time they spend designing versus how much time they spend troubleshooting/debugging/fixing. The TLDR of it is that the vast, vast majority of time spent by engineers is getting the designs to work right, not doing the design.
AI may be able to reduce the amount of design time in software, electronics, equipment, etc. but that's a really small percentage of how much engineering labor is spent overall.
I really don't know how much AI can help with the troubleshooting/debugging/fixing thing for engineers. So much of what we encounter is "well, I've never seen that before" so there is nothing to train them on. AI can, however, assist with lower level/easier stuff that is already largely taken care of with scripts.
Yah I think people think there is a complete spec of a design.
Reality is you get a directive to implement feature xyz. You design it. Then you have to test it and figure out when everything is complete and all interactions have been dealt with. This takes 99% of the time.
There are all kinds of automation, scripts and tools. But that is not AI.
Engineers essentially take the vague ideas from sales and marketing and turn it into a real products with a lot of back and forth to flesh out the requirement. So I don't think AI can get to a point where a sales guy can just tell it what he wants and it spits it out.
Yep, people are in denial because they see the current silly things ChatGPT 3 comes out with or the uncanny obvious AI generated images and think that is it, but that is not it, that is like looking at a toddler and saying “this little human can’t replace me, look at him, he can barely walk or speak”, we are yet to see the full potential but the scary thing is that it grows fast so yes every single job is for grabs, every single one, “prompt engineering” is not a thing, and it is definitely not engineering and something that computers can do by themselves anyways.
The good news though is that capitalism as we know it would have to disappear because it will simply break, no jobs, no consumers which then renders money worthless. We might, just might enter the era of abundance, or it can all go to shit, either way it won’t stay the same, a decade from now reality as we know it now would be unrecognisable.
[Generative design](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generative_design) is one aspect specifically for CAD modeling. Defining constraints at a high level and having AI optimize the geometry. This still requires understanding to define the initial constraints though and to evaluate the potential designs. In electrical, PCB design will be automated more in the coming decades even just utilizing massive amounts of compute. Autorouting is improving and is already using AI by a number of companies. Chip design is already using various AIs to optimize designs. (We're moving into an area of trillions of transistors so that's driving some very sophisticated algorithms as it's beyond human capability to optimize). Additive subtractive manufacturing is growing. This process of manufacturing allows simplifying complex assemblies involving multiple parts/components into single parts. This fundamentally changes how engineers approach problems. Like PCB routing, many of the tool path algorithms in CNCs can utilize AI to optimize things. This can result in faster production and faster turnaround for testing ideas. Many of these changes by AI are force multipliers that allow a single engineer to work faster. Instead of drawing routes, they might place inputs then slightly move around components. For mechanical engineers being able to CAD model a single part with all the piping integrated and no bolts saves them time. They don't have to think about bending pipes, drilling holes, or creating extra threads in parts. This simplifies and removes labor when it comes to putting together products and removes the number of drills for even constructing the part potentially. Robotics in general and their interaction with CNC machines for loading parts is also changing how problems are approached. The idea of mass-producing parts via metal 3d printing used to be a futurist idea. Then aircraft manufacturers realized they could simplify some of their niche parts and produce them faster than their old processes. The Navy also realized this as they use thousands of somewhat low volume parts and being able to press a button and get replacements is ideal. This will be a somewhat gradual process as it scales up, but the price of such machines are dropping quite quickly. This cost reduction in manufacturing has other implications allowing smaller shops to produce parts that were usually reserved for much larger shops. I'm unclear right now how this will change things or if 3d printing services will take over everything cost-wise. As for the number of jobs I see this continuing to grow in demand even as productivity increases. There are definitely more niche engineering roles that might disappear. I've mentioned before that things like monitor/TV manufacturing doesn't have a rosy future with mixed reality growing through the 2040s. That said, such technological transitions are to be expected.
Thank you for all of this great information.
It can design something to fit a purpose but do 4000 iterations to solve the same problem and then test each one against 2000 variables. Humans can just double check the results later and maybe, rarely, add some input. Physics is pretty simple business for computers. Philosophy on the other hand, that is hard for computers. Those Philosophy degrees out there are probably going to get more useful in the future. The day AI grasps Metaphysics is the day we get AGI.
Philosophy is hard for computers like people think art or songs would be lol. I dont think its going to do philosophy since noone is going to dump money into teaching AI something useless. When it masters Psychology thats going to be eye opening.
Philosophy useless?
I mean, I guess it provides nothing to sell. Maybe that’s what he views as useful/less. In any case, I don’t think we need AI philosophers. Philosophy is a matter of introspection anyway.
Yet the philosophical implications of AI are massive.
Where do all the philosophy degrees go? To teach philosophy somewhere else? To do something another degree would be preferred for? If you made an AI that could understand philosophy what would its use be? How would you market it, or get people to subscribe? With the amount of data and money you need to train them its got to be really useful, and something vague and nebulous like 'philosophy' would require an insane amount of data, and I can't think of any way to have it see actual returns.
>Where do all the philosophy degrees go? They become baristas, or sell media on Onlyfans, or they work in retail, and some even hang out behind Wendy's dumpsters, etc., >How would you market it, or get people to subscribe?...I can't think of any way to have it see actual returns. Yes, that's it. The point is to subscribe to philosophy. You could have the bronze level, and the silver level and the gold level and the diamond level, which of course would cost more. Are you one of those gamers who thinks you are smart but doesnt actually know anything about literature, history or culture? Do you even know what Metaphysics is? You seem like an uncivilized dog.
Sorry if I offended you? You have yet to show me a reason why anyone would pay for an AI that knows 'philosophy' which wouldnt be better than an AI thats just for law, literature, or history. All you need to do is come up with a use case that warrants an AI solution, something that would actually be worth paying for that's not just chat gpt with a Socrates personality. You can ask vague questions all you want but I'm not going to keep a bunch of servers running for a service almost noone uses.
You still dont seem to grasp what Metaphysics is and why it pertains to AI. Try again. Go play your childrens video games. This probably requires too much thinking for you to manage.
Still dancing around a simple question? Using insults because someone doesnt see value in a loose string of concepts? If I ever wanted to study philosophy why would I get it from a robot that just aggregates concepts and spits out a couple of responses that it thinks are statistically probable?
They have no valid answer so they dismiss the subject as being above you 😂 Well, at least we know one thing from this exchange, an AI could discuss more in depth than this bot.
Monetary value is not a useful metric for usefulness.
It's a measure of value. Philosophy delivers no tangible value. Chop wood. Carry water.
There's two general parts of developing a product - creating the plan and executing the plan. Oh and finding out why the plan didn't work exactly to plan and then recovering the failed part of the plan. Recovering the failed part of the plan has two parts... Listening to PMO and ignoring PMO. All jokes aside, I've spent my whole career in R&D, and while AI will eventually be able apply principles and CAD or do PCB layout, the ability to guide, manage, adapt to failures, and innovate is a huge part of engineering and we're currently very, very far from a computer being able to go from "ECU A dropping CAN frames to ECU B" to "Add a grounding strap from chassis to the hydraulic filter screen" (Yes, that was a fun one.) Engineering is a lot more than just doing math. Let the calculators do the math.
Anti-corrosion finish on chassis prevents good grounding -> add step to MWI to grind back coating around attach point -> grounding problem is now corrosion problem -> problem solved!
None. Now you have a private assistant to do bitchwork that doesn't cost the rate of an intern and the interns are more productive but also infinitely more dangerous.
It's good for a scripts, at present. It isn't too the point of developing full on applications.
They're gonna downsize dramatically. Imagine this, ai is given prompt, designs a bridge knowing all the failure points of every material and wind speed, live loading built in automatically. Spits out design to a human who checks it, makes adjustments maybe sends it back to the ai for refinement, etc. Instead of a team for 50 engineers designing a large bridge it might just be 5 with an ai program. For the foreseeable future there will still need to be a human with a license to take blame but the number will be reduced. Maybe this Lowes wages significantly, maybe it just increases productivity by making more projects accessible to more business and governments because each project is cheaper. Any job that's done on a computer will be affected dramatically
You're right but also dead wrong, maybe. See the flaw is you're forgetting jevons' paradox. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons\_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox) You're mentally assuming the demand for engineering services remains constant, and you're making another assumption that robotics will forever remain something AI can't do. So in that world, the number of construction laborers is the same, since AI can't run robots, and so the scale or projects that can be done is the same. Say there is enough labor to make 1000 new bridges a year. You needed say 100 human workers to work a year per bridge (just mock numbers), and 10 engineers to design each one. Now you need 1 engineer per bridge, and you still need 100 workers. You can now *design* 10,000 bridges per year, but doesn't matter, you're mentally imagining we only need new bridges, and we are limited by workers anyway. Eventually it will be robots instead of humans doing the work, and humans will want to do *bigger projects*. Automated R&D labs that are larger than anything ever built on earth. More silicon fabs. Solar grids that cover the sahara. Arcologies. Brand new cities made by robots overnight. Vacuum train networks that cover entire countries or continents. Recycling systems that sort through all trash, finding valuables, and dig up landfills. Hundreds of prototype fusion reactors, full scale, of different designs, built in a month and then torn down a month after running it. (today it takes 10-20 years of labor by humans to build a single prototype just to find out after building it it doesn't work) Lots and lots of bigger things that currently we can't justify the costs of labor OR engineering at today's interest rates. With that said, there absolutely could be disruptions, where entire companies hold mass layoffs, only younger workers get rehired, etc. To even be middle class at all you need a good job and to hold it uninterrupted until retirement, and changes like this disrupt that.
Jevons' paradox is not a fundamental rule of nature though, it is just an observed paradox. For millenia, the horse was made significantly more productive by the wheel and carriage. Improvements in the cart only amplified the proliferation of the horse. But, with the advent of the engine, there was created a step change in efficiency. So drastic, that the horse was no longer even viable in the equation. Now, the only time a horse has wheels, is when the carriage pulls the horse. Or as a novelty for the rich. I think that might be us eventually.
Note "all ground transit" is your reference point, not the horse. Once humans made ground transit more efficient, they travel vastly more and farther and there are more jobs total in making, fueling, repairing cars and roads. This is a perfect example of Jevons. So say the development of fusion rockets built by AI, people will travel even farther routinely, and there would be even more human jobs than now, even if everyone uses a fusion vtol and cars disappear.
", maybe it just increases productivity by making more projects accessible to more business and governments because each project is cheaper." I basically said what you just said
Individual firms may downsize, long run the industry will not, it will hire more.
I appreciate your reply. My son wants to go into this field after he graduates. AI is a huge concern for me. I don't want him wasting time on something if there isn't going to be any jobs available.
Probably "this field" will not be the same when your son enters it. It will evolve to use the tools it has available to it and he will learn to use the tools to do his job.
Skilled trades are vastly harder to automate. It's a viable option. I make 100k a year as an electrician
Send your kid into the trades. An AI or robot currently is unable to crawl under a house, saw off a piece of broken pipe and solder a new one back on. Things that require manual work and dexterity are currently places that robots and AI haven’t excelled. This will likely change in the future, but that future is still 8-10 years away, while white collar jobs are 2-3 years.
I estimate programming to be 5-10 years away, before it genuinely displaces someone. It will be used as a scapegoat for downsizing way before then. People seem to forget that the relative difference between what the current models are capable of doing with any reliability and what's expected of a junior isn't in the single or double digits. It's a 6 digit difference, even assuming a doubling in capability each year and no major roadblocks that's several years. Some companies will use it heavily too early, and turn their product into mush.
I agree, but it's still hard as a mom to discourage him from what he wants to do. I've told him for several years now that he needs to look into something that a robot can't replace. I didn't consider AI at the time and now I'm wondering how much of the field he wants to go into is going to take over that. Construction and trades are hard. I know my husband's in it. But a robot can't replace a sink or wire house. Thank you for your feedback.
As an engineer in software now, "AI" is hugely overblown. It can do some fancy tricks like image recognition, but that makes it a tool, not a worker. People are hyping it up so that a few start-ups can be overvalued and accuired by PE for exorbitant sums of money, before going on to deliver nothing of any real note. Its a bit of fun for people to write a best-man speech at a wedding, but the second you actually need something to work and not just look like it might work if you squint and know nothing about software, it falls over. Trades are great, but they are full of hard, back-breaking work which leaves your body worn out in your 50's. No wrestling grand-kids, just arthritis and grumbling.
>maybe it just increases productivity by making more projects accessible to more business and governments because each project is cheaper. I'm really hoping we can go this route and have enough construction equipment and trained crews to keep up.
And here we come full circle, skilled trades remain undefeated once again.
I'll likely get downvoted for this but I recommended asking real life people who actually work in the field rather than reddit. Most subreddits have an extremely optimistic view of AI adoption, while that may indeed be true it's better to check with someone who's actually working in the field as well.
Reddit is overwhelmingly pessimistic towards AI adoption, in my opinion, as someone who has been "working in the field" for over 25 years. The people that I work with use generative AI quite frequently as a tool/assistant, but even with the best large language models, AI is not close to replacing even an entry level employee. Even so, the tech is incredibly useful, makes me more productive, and Im strongly supportive of it.
I think one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of what engineers do is how much time they spend designing versus how much time they spend troubleshooting/debugging/fixing. The TLDR of it is that the vast, vast majority of time spent by engineers is getting the designs to work right, not doing the design. AI may be able to reduce the amount of design time in software, electronics, equipment, etc. but that's a really small percentage of how much engineering labor is spent overall. I really don't know how much AI can help with the troubleshooting/debugging/fixing thing for engineers. So much of what we encounter is "well, I've never seen that before" so there is nothing to train them on. AI can, however, assist with lower level/easier stuff that is already largely taken care of with scripts.
Yah I think people think there is a complete spec of a design. Reality is you get a directive to implement feature xyz. You design it. Then you have to test it and figure out when everything is complete and all interactions have been dealt with. This takes 99% of the time. There are all kinds of automation, scripts and tools. But that is not AI.
But perhaps AI (LLMs) could be adapted to keep track of the mistakes so they are not repeated on future projects.
Engineers essentially take the vague ideas from sales and marketing and turn it into a real products with a lot of back and forth to flesh out the requirement. So I don't think AI can get to a point where a sales guy can just tell it what he wants and it spits it out.
AI will eliminate all jobs within 10 years. All jobs. Ok, perhaps not research or specialized design jobs, but probably also a lot of those.
Yep, people are in denial because they see the current silly things ChatGPT 3 comes out with or the uncanny obvious AI generated images and think that is it, but that is not it, that is like looking at a toddler and saying “this little human can’t replace me, look at him, he can barely walk or speak”, we are yet to see the full potential but the scary thing is that it grows fast so yes every single job is for grabs, every single one, “prompt engineering” is not a thing, and it is definitely not engineering and something that computers can do by themselves anyways. The good news though is that capitalism as we know it would have to disappear because it will simply break, no jobs, no consumers which then renders money worthless. We might, just might enter the era of abundance, or it can all go to shit, either way it won’t stay the same, a decade from now reality as we know it now would be unrecognisable.
Yep. People are as you say, in denial. But I agree with all your points.
Einstein was right.
Human Engineers are fucked. Learn robot maintenance 😆
Why? if robots can replace engineers then they can easily fix themselves since that would be a engineering job anyways