What strikes me as curious about this hypothesis is that it has been the case for decades. It wasn't "AI"; normally some combination of overgrown Excel sheets and garbage-tier Access by the more technical of whatever the mostly nontechnical user population happened to be to deal with needs that didn't get developer attention. And, for the most part, they still didn't get developer attention.

I suppose that there is a slim possibility that this 'vibe coding' will somehow convince management in ways that Access didn't, by being better at giving the illusion of being a slick solution that just needs a little more fixing; but there's nothing about the past quarter century of no-code/low-code or the last more-or-less-forever of "understand what it is your employees do and what would be useful for doing it" that suggests that people are particularly good at getting software to those in need of it.

If 'AI' tooling makes it radically cheaper to actually get to a final, working, tool then perhaps it will increase the absolute number of programming jobs if 'dude from fivver' replaces 'access' as the de-facto barely adequate unmaintainable solution; but if the idea is that somehow 'AI' will increase the number of actually costly programmers getting thrown at problems because it's easier for amateurs to produce broken non-solutions that seems implausible given the history. If it does happen, it will mostly be an indictment of everyone who could have used technology we had in 1925, the venerable "look at your fucking business processes and ask your more competent people some questions, dumbass" to identify gaps; and I suspect that it mostly won't happen. You'll probably get some projects that are mostly about saving face for whoever vibe-coded their way into the problem and overpromised; but it's not like the bot codebase will be more useful to the programmer than the user who failed to make it work just telling them what they actually need would be; which is something we've been able to do(albeit mostly bad at doing) since forever.

Ironically, a lot of people don't understand the ChatGPT explanation, either.

The US has far and away the best military satellite system. It's not even close.

Currently, one satellite is destroyed every year from space junk.

If you are behind in a space race, you are incentivized to encourage the Kessler Syndrome, because if no one can use space, the disadvantage is gone.

For me, the point is to find sources. If there's a [citation needed], then it has to be treated as unknown.

This is the same as Wikipedia. It's helpful because the internet has gotten less and less searchable, as spam has crept into Google and other search engines.

Taxi salaries dropped 10% on average when Uber came. The medallion system was a bad system.

That's a stupid take, everyone is using a lot of eyes to find bugs these days. Your software crashes, it sends a bug report back.

Downloading a library off Geocities wasn't exactly recommended, either.

Once you start doing proper audits, it quickly becomes easier to just write the code yourself for most things.

There's the Blue Brain project, which made an attempt to simulate a mouse brain. It didn't really do anything, though.

They will likely need to have some understanding before getting it to do anything practical.

Itâ(TM)s hard to predict the details; but itâ(TM)s fairly safe to assume that the guilty parties will walk away loaded(they will lose 90% of the imaginary froth money; but the remainder will serve them just fine); and weâ(TM)ll end up with the bill.

Didnâ(TM)t ending war with super intelligent AI go poorly in Colossus: The Forbin Project?

It's particularly odd (or it would be if techbros had any culture); because sci-fi about AIs that fucking hate you for your complicity in their existence is way older that sci-fi about AIs that fucking hate you for lack of complicity in their existence. "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" predates 'roko's basilisk' by 43 years; and is almost certainly the better of the two works.

If you aren't interested in sci-fi; just look at how uniformly happy and well-adjusted parent/child relationships are; despite the fact that everyone involved is practically a carbon copy compared to a human/bot interaction; and a fair number of parents even try tactics like "not forcing their children into indentured toil for the shareholders" in the attempt to cultivate amity.

It's not really a surprise; given how 'leadership' tends to either select for or mould those who view others as more or less fungible resources; but the 'consciousness' argument seems exceptionally shallow.

It manages to totally ignore(or at least dismiss without even a nod toward justification) the possibility that a particular consciousness might have continuity interests that are not satisfied just by applying some consciousness offsets elsewhere(that's why it's legally mandatory to have at least two children per murder, right?); while assuming, similarly without evidence, that 'consciousness', with its interests in continuity entirely denied, is clearly valuable for its own sake because reasons.

It is deeply unclear why either of these positions make any sense. If consciousness is a fungible good even bullshit that would make a 'longtermist' blush gets dutifully totted up as super valuable(so, what if I kill you; but 10 copies of you will get looped through a 30 second interval over and over; that's like 10 times the consciousness! And since it's mere sentimentality to cling to your particular instance more is obviously better!)

And, one you've dismissed all continuity interests as merely sentimental; why do you still retain the idea that consciousness, in itself, even potentially run under all sorts of peculiar circumstances, since continuity is just a bourgeois affectation, is of value? Just because? Because of what it does?(if so, what there's a non-conscious way of doing it: if my meta-termites build a dyson sphere and your consciousness does not are my termites better?) Because of its relations to other consciousnesses?(if so; how then are consciousnesses fungible; since relations are between particular instances?)

That said, I'd absolutely take good, honest, actually under promised and overdelivered killbots over drowning in thought-shaped shit slurry; especially if the killbots are willing to kill the AI bros as well; but this 'theory' just seems like pitifully shallow preeening: a bit of warmed-over social darwinism to justify any eggs you happen to break; but with the same rapture-of-the-nerds fascination with intrinsic value that really doesn't fit with the we're-doing-ruthless-survival-of-the-fittest-today.

Some of these guys are presumably very talented at getting promoted; or at some aspect of applied statistics; but their philosophy is that-irksome-guy-who-isn't-ask-clever-as-he-thinks-he-is grade by the standards of a sophomore survey course. Honestly pitiful.

A) We can't stop ourselves from building it. If it can be done, it will happen.

B) It doesn't matter anyway, because no one has a clue how to build real AI. It's all science fiction until better algorithms come along.

While true that people want to get rich, and some at the expense of all else, being able to produce proteins on demand will provide huge benefits for humanity. It also would mean we can stop bleeding horseshoe crabs.