(no title)
finnjohnsen2 | 10 days ago
Unless there a limited amount of software we need to produce per year globally to keep everyone happy, then nobody wants more -- and we happen to be at that point right NOW this second.
I think not. We can make more (in less time) and people will get more. This is the mental "glass half full" approach I think. Why not take this mental route instead? We don't know the future anyway.
DrewADesign|10 days ago
And if corporate wealth means people get paid more, why are companies that are making more money than ever laying off so many people? Wouldn’t they just be happy to use them to meet the inexhaustible demand for software?
jimbokun|10 days ago
I hear people complaining about software being forced on them to do things they did just fine without software before, than people complaining about software they want that doesn’t exist.
dasil003|10 days ago
On one hand it is very empowering to individuals, and many of those individuals will be able to achieve grander visions with less compromise and design-by-committee. On the other hand, it also enables an unprecedented level of slop that will certainly dilute the quality of software overall. What will be the dominant effect?
kiba|10 days ago
jimbokun|10 days ago
inglor_cz|10 days ago
Current software is often buggy because the pressure to ship is just too high. If AI can fix some loose threads within, the overall quality grows.
Personally, I would welcome a massive deployment of AI to root out various zero-days from widespread libraries.
But we may instead get a larger quantity of even more buggy software.