I know there's an argument for it's my right to feed s***** power into my own house if I want to. However a lot of people with that mentality are then going to blame others when various appliances in their home fail prematurely.
Are the operators paid at the full rate they're capable of producing, or are they simply receiving a small stipend when the grid operator is bottlenecked?
Except that the AI also gets better at helping people with less training to do that design and architecture work, which means more people become capable of doing that work, which means the value to the firm declines, and the salary they pay declines with it.
As the overall productivity of the people increase, there are more people who can do the work at each level, so perversely, it encourages companies to pay them less.
I'm not sure that part is true—or at least true only with major caveats. The people I see who skip the basics and try to do design and architecture do it the way LLMs do it: superficial pattern matching. This lets you solve simple problems by gluing together off-the-shelf parts. Without understanding the fundamentals, however, the solutions tend to be stupendously inefficient. I used to be in the 'compute is cheap' camp, and when you compare Java vs. optimized C in a business app, that's generally true. When you're comparing 'touch it once binary data' vs 'lets serialize everything as text, add a GUID for every data point, then bounce it between multiple servers and disks, while logging all of that to kibana' you can turn a $1000/month infrastructure bill into a $1000/hour one.
Those same people will tell me their architecture is more 'scalable' and 'reliable' because it uses all the buzzwords.
To be fair, I do think these tools help people advance faster when used correctly, but I disagree that they catapult people forward the way you suggest. I do think this gap can be closed, but it probably means more school learning to "get on the ladder" since the 'apprentice' jobs have been taken by an AI.
As the overall productivity of the people increase, there are more people who can do the work at each level, so perversely, it encourages companies to pay them less.
Here we agree; I'm not sure what the solution is.
Yes the jobs that it helps the most with are the less skilled ones, but that means I need less of those people. The higher level design and architecture my senior team does just gets more valuable by contrast.
Good news, with newer tech the payback is even faster.
An average EV produced in the U.S. in 2023 will close the gap in about 2.2 years or 25,000 miles. https://www.scientificamerican...
While there are always examples to cherry pick, overall I think the mistake is comparing the American dream (not reality) of the 1950s-70s to what a lower middle class person can expect today. Housing is outrageous but that's a bit of a blip since covid and it will find a way to stabilize. It's worth noting that housing is one of the very few significant expenses we have that are strictly provided locally.
The problem is an unfair game created by allowing companies and therefore their investors to externalize costs. It's not reasonable to blame individuals for playing that game as best they can when their decisions have a big impact on their livelihoods but they individually have no power to change the game. It's also not hypocritical to both push for a different game, and play the current game to the best of your ability.
Misinformation is, and will be, an opinion of each person involved.
This implies that there is no objective truth. Naturally if you start from this premise then you can't do much better than let them mob argue with itself. The Earth is flat, the Earth is round it really just matters how you felt about it when you got out of bed this morning.
If you think the world is flat yes you can take a plane from Vancouver to London, but you're going to be unsuccessful as a pilot or navigator. Your belief that the world is flat fails when tested against objective reality.
Something like a logic tree may be valuable when applied to honest actors, but it's entirely possible to create very large and complex internally consistent belief systems if you conveniently leave out objective reality. Or if you reduce objective reality to mere opinion.
Science and religion are in full accord but science and faith are in complete discord.