I downloaded the turbo whisper model optimized for Mac, created a python script that get the mic input and paste the result. The python script is LLM generated and it works with pushing a key.
For 80% of the functionality for free and done locally.
Well the extent is much broader from a calculator vs an LLM. Why should I hire you if an agent can do it ? LLM is every job is a calculator and can be replaced. Spotify CEO stated on X that before asking for more headcount they have to justify not being able to do the job with an agent. So all the students who let the LLM do their assignment and learn basically nothing, what’s their value for a company to be hired ? The company will and is just using the agent as well …
An agent can't do it. It can help you like a calculator can help you, but it can't do it alone. So that means you've become the programmer. If you want to be the programmer, you always could have been. If that is what you want to be, why would you consider hiring anyone else to do it in the first place?
> Spotify CEO stated on X that before asking for more headcount they have to justify not being able to do the job with an agent.
It was Shopifiy, but that's just a roundabout way to say that there is a hiring freeze due to low sales (no doubt because of tariff nonsense seizing up the market). An agent, like a calculator, can only increase the productivity of a programmer. As always, you still need more programmers to perform more work than a single programmer can handle. So all they are saying is that "we can't afford to do more".
> The company will and is just using the agent as well …
In which case wouldn't they want to hire those who are experts in using agents? If they, like Shopify, have become too poor to hire people – well, you're screwed either way, aren't you? So that is moot.
So like arguably when people were not using calculators they made calculations by hand and there was a room full of people that did calculations. That’s gone now thanks to calculators. But it the analogy goes to an order of magnitude higher, now fewer people can « do » the job of many so less hiring maybe but not just on « do calculations by hand » but almost all fields where the use of software is required.
Where will all those new students find a job if :
- they did not learn much because LLM did work for them
- there is no new jobs required because we are more productive ?
Never in the history of humans have we been content with stagnation. The people who used to do manual calculations soon joined the ranks of people using calculators and we lapped up everything they could create.
This time around is no exception. We still have an infinite number of goals we can envision a desire for. If you could afford an infinite number of people you would still hire them. But Shopify especially is not in the greatest place right now. They've just come off the COVID wind-down and now tariffs are beating down their market further. They have to be very careful with their resources for the time being.
> - they did not learn much because LLM did work for them
If companies are using LLMs as suggested earlier, they will find jobs operating LLMs. They're well poised for it, being the utmost experts in using them.
> - there is no new jobs required because we are more productive ?
More productivity means more jobs are required. But we are entering an age where productivity is bound to be on the decline. A recession was likely inevitable anyway and the political sphere is making it all but a certainty. That is going to make finding a job hard. But for what scant few jobs remain, won't they be using LLMs?
> Spotify CEO stated on X that before asking for more headcount they have to justify not being able to do the job with an agent.
Spotify CEO is channeling The Two Bobs from Office Space: "What are you actually doing here?" Just in a nastier way, with a kind of prisoner's dilemma on top. If you can get by with an agent, fine, you won't bother him. If you can't, why can't you? Should we replace you with someone who can, or thinks they can?
You as the employer are liable, a human has real reasoning abilities and real fears about messing up, the likely hood of them doing something absurd like telling a customer that a product is 70% off and them not losing their job is effectively nil. What are you going to do with the LLM, fire it?
Data scientist and people deeply familiar with LLMs to the point that they could fine tune a model to your use case cost significantly more than a low skilled employee and depending on liability just running the LLM may be cheaper.
As an accounting firm ( one example from above ) far as I know in most jurisdictions the accountant doing the work is personally liable, who would be liable in the case of the LLM?
There is absolutely a market for LLM augmented workforces, I don't see any viable future even with SOTA models right now for flat out replacing a workforce with them.
I fully agree with you about liability. I was advocating for the other point of view.
Some people argue that it doesn’t matter if there is mistakes (it depends which actually) and with time it will cost nothing.
I argue that if we give up learning and let LLM do the assignments then what is the extent of my knowledge and value to be hired in the first place ?
We hired a developper and he did everything with chatGPT, all the code and documentation he wrote. First it was all bad because from the infinity of answers chatGPT is not pinpointing the best in every case. But does he have enough knowledge to understand what he did was bad ? And then we need people with experience that confronted themselves with hard problems and found their way out. How can we confront and critic an LLM answer otherwise ?
I feel student’s value is diluted to be at the mercy of companies providing the LLM and we might loose some critical knowledge / critical thinking in the process from the students.
I agree entirely on your take regarding education. I feel like there is a place where LLMs are useful but doesn't impact learning but it's definitely not in the "discovery" phase of learning.
However I really don't need to implement some weird algorithms myself every time (ideally I am using a well tested Library) but the point is that you learn to be able to but also to be able to modify or compose the algorithm in ways the LLM couldn't easily do.
For your GPS at worst you follow directions road sign by road sign.
For a job without the core knowledge what’s the goal of hiring one person vs an unqualified one doing just prompts or worse, hiring no one and let agents do the prompting ?
> "Human brains lack any model of intelligence. It's just neurons firing in complicated patterns in response to inputs based on what statistically leads to reproductive success"
Are you sure about that ? Do we have proof of that ? In happened all the time trought history of science that a lot of scientists were convinced of something and a model of reality up until someone discovers a new proof and or propose a new coherent model. That’s literally the history of science, disprove what we thought was an established model
Indeed, a good point. My comment assumes that our current model of the human brain is (sufficiently) complete.
Your comment reveals an interesting corollary - those that believe in something beyond our understanding, like the Christian soul, may never be convinced that an AI is truly sapient.
Well it’s a good point that proves at least two things. First in the industrial world machine have not yet replaced man after decades. Still a force multiplier.
The second point is the one who control « what » produces value wins it all. In France we had amazing industries and some were deported offshore. Maybe some genius thought that only the brain mattered. Now countries have to rely on other countries to build or make products evolve and those countries can make their own products now and can charge us whatever they want (I’m simplifying) because we don’t know how to build things anymore, tools and craftsmanship is gone and not learned anymore. I feel the article pin points exactly the main idea behind AI : who will have control and who will be able to decide that the API price can be x100 ? If no one knows how to code, that is very dangerous and what happened in the industrial world shows it’s dangerous. Companies have an endgame of power and as a developer deciding to not learn or delegate my know how makes me at mercy in the end
When I look at fields like car manufacturing, which is mostly robotic, it seems that nowadays humans are force multipliers for machines rather than the other way around.
Yeah but there isn’t one self operating supply chain that makes cars. We make more cars of ship them faster.
The day machines 100% replaced humans throughout the industries it will be an other problem because capitalism is built upon the premise that man is paid because he brings value. Once that’s over and you don’t have money the things you’ll consume less are the nice to have so whole countries might be in trouble. So either we all be able to bring other kinds of values, either the system will have to change not to collapse ?
I expect that a dozen humans coming to Calibre for the first time would articulate at least a half-dozen mutually conflicting perspectives on what would be "intuituve". I further expect that each of them would be mostly articulating "what I'm used to". If you unpack "Intuitive" it's mostly a tribal ingroup statement.
The FOSS author has a choice: they can attempt to chase whatever UX rabbits are scared up by The Market, or they can try to make it straightforward to learn their tool, despite its differences from the momentary fashion. I think the Calibre dev's done an excellent job there.
I really want to make a stand for Kovid Goyal here, because he has indeed done an excellent job with Calibre. But every time this discussion comes up, people act like pointing out a user interface isn't intuitive is throwing shit at the developer, which it isn't.
Maybe there is a reason people do spend years studying interaction design, and we can agree there's probably things that could be improved on the interface to make it more intuitive by someone who's specialised in that?
The interface can be definitely improved, but that requires actual research and resources to pull it off. But as of now, it's not that complicated and very well documented.
I understand that, it’s a lot of work and resources are needed. The most important aspect in this regard is features over UX. But for a casual user, not finding UI elements we’re used to makes it harder to want to learn it for a few use cases. So maybe I’m not the target (power user in ebook domain).
But dismissing any UI change as useless … maybe it’s far fetched.
> I further expect that each of them would be mostly
> articulating "what I'm used to".
This is true, but most users spend most of their time away from any given application. Very few people become experts at using Calibre. So there's nothing wrong with taking cues from the most popular applications, the kinds of applications where people form their intuitions.
I use Calibre a few times a year, and I'm quite confused every time. I usually just Google the steps to do the thing I need to do, and even after I understand how to do it, it never makes a lot of sense to me.
Having said that, if the developers like the way it works, then that's all that matters. I'm glad it exists either way.
reply