The problem is that hidden among that complexity/detail is often the value that software developers bring e.g. security issues, regulatory compliance, diagnosability/monitoring, privacy, scalability, resilience etc.
There will be bugs that the AI cannot fix, especially in the short term, which will mean that code needs to be readable and understandable by a human. Without human review that will likely not be the case.
I'm also intrigued by "see if it works". How is this being evaluated? Are you writing a test suite, manually testing?
Don't get me wrong, this approach will likely work in lower risk software, but I think you'd be brave to go no human review in any non-trivial domain.
The underlying tech choice only matters at the moment because as software developers we are used to that choice being important. We see it as important because we currently are the ones that have to use it.
As more and more software is generated and the prompt becomes how we define software rather than code i.e. we shift up an abstraction level, how it is implemented will become less and less interesting to people. In the same way that product owners now do not care about technology, they just want a working solution that meets their requirements. Similarly I don't care how the assembly language produced by a compiler looks most of the time.
"people are just more productive" is not the case for everyone. That relies on a lot of variables; type of work being done, as you mention the office environment, whether the people you're working with are in that office etc. My home office is far superior to any environment I've ever been given by an employer. I have multiple large screens, control over the heating, a door I can close and most importantly a cat to stroke whilst thinking.
Anecdotally I find extroverts prefer the office and introverts prefer home. I find that seamless access to people can be really distracting especially when I'm doing focus work.
I think you're correct if people are given a good work environment, are in on the same days and are all in the same office this makes sense. The reality is that in many large organizations this isn't the case.
Cutting corners and costs e.g. shutting ticket offices, doing just enough to barely offer the service. It's not like your passengers have any sensible alternative. If that doesn't do it then you can also load the company up with debt and pay yourself a nice dividend until rates rise.
> load the company up with debt and pay yourself a nice dividend
I am new to this. Doesn't a dividend come from profits? What profits are there if you need debt? And who will loan to you if your business plan is to exit scam?
> What profits are there if you need debt? And who will loan to you if your business plan is to exit scam?
If you’re a water company, after government bailed out the banks, chances were good you’re not going bust. What are they going to do? Let the entire population of London die of dehydration?
And since a lot of investors in large utility companies are international, should the government somehow not make them whole (or worse, just expropriate), there would typically be repercussions - with international arbitration courts adjudicating reparation with processes that are typically stacked in favour of businesses.
And they should thus pay the extra cost for that privilege.
30 years ago Terry Wogan was using his radio 2 breakfast show telling the 40-60 demographic how to send emails and watch his webcam. That demographic are now 70-90. I do sympathise for independent 95 year olds who can't use a ticket machine. I'd rather we spent the money in a far better way -- increasing services for example.
I dont think this is true, but suppose it was - so what? If I am travelling eith my daughter I often need advice from the ticket office folks. It does not matyer how they aquire it.
Additionally, often the ticket office gives better rates -
It could possibly be achieved here if our prices weren't so arcane and difficult to understand. There's tickets you can't get from the machines etc. There was a photo yesterday of a queue of 10 odd people waiting next to 4 idle ticket machines. It's solvable but nobody seems interested in actually doing it, presumably because it costs money to fix. International Airlines I assume gained some competitive edge by that move, there is no competition in a lot of our privatized industries so no real incentive to do anything but the bare minimum.
Thanks, yes, and I agree the UK has been on a downward path for a considerable time; I don't blame anybody for trying to find somewhere they will be happier - and warmer :) - it's the materialistic worship at the centre of a lot of our problems (reflected in the values of empty salary-chasing) that bothers me.
If the services are around you are deteriorating, then by definition you need more money to access the type of services that used to exist at the level you are used to.
So I'm not sure empty salary-chasing is as empty as you make it seem. Sometimes salary chasing is just trying to keep up with inflation in order to make sure your family maintains a decent standard of living.
Unless I completely misunderstood your post, in which case disregard everything I said.
I am. My children are the only things keeping me here. It's not about the money it's about quality of life. Healthcare is rapidly becoming non-existent, schools operate off the back of teachers, roads are falling apart, the level of corruption is embarrassing, housing market is ridiculous, childcare is expensive and/or non-existent etc. In general any service provided by the state is deteriorating.
It's not about the money it's about quality of life
My response was to a post about money.
Wrt quality of life, I can definitely see that as an argument for leaving the UK (though obviously less useful than staying to try and change it), but you only have to look at international quality of life indexes to see that social happiness is pretty much inversely related to materialist excess within the developed nations.
Gold does have utility beyond being shiny and for now has actual scarcity. Fiat currencies have utility in that I can pay my taxes in the local one, my government pays for things using it, it is pretty much universally accepted etc. I see a future for electronic currencies just not necessarily the crypto technologies we see today.
The "much less likely to get confiscated" is potentially a negative too e.g. confiscation of the profits of crime benefits society. Whether it is more positive or more negative depends upon home much you trust your government to be benevolent.
As someone that just cancelled their subscription for me it was cost and to cut down the number of streaming services I have. Netflix didn't stand up well next to the others for cost and quantity of must watch content.
There will be bugs that the AI cannot fix, especially in the short term, which will mean that code needs to be readable and understandable by a human. Without human review that will likely not be the case.
I'm also intrigued by "see if it works". How is this being evaluated? Are you writing a test suite, manually testing?
Don't get me wrong, this approach will likely work in lower risk software, but I think you'd be brave to go no human review in any non-trivial domain.