It’s not possible to make you unskilled if you’re skilled. At worst, you’d get rusty. It is possible that your skills might not be in high demand anymore though.
The only thing that would make programmers not be in demand is if “vibe coding” were truly producing a better product than traditional programming. So far, the only ones making that claim are the ones desperately trying to sell “AI” before the bubble bursts. It’s true that there are some companies that really want to believe it. But, companies are always desperately hoping for something that can allow them to fire their expensive workers. It’s rare that that works out.
In that case it’s not talking about “deskilling”, it’s about “not skilling in the first place”.
But, those are completely different things. I was never skilled in riding horses, the way I assume my great grandparents were. I didn’t learn how to use a sliderule like my grandfather did. But, I still learned skills that were valuable for the moment in history where I grew up. There’s never any guarantee that a baby born today will get to the age of 20 with skills that are useful enough that someone will pay them to use those skills.
As for programming, it isn’t some kind of nefarious goal to make sure that tomorrow’s children won’t know how to do it. It’s an immediate short-term goal to try to save money by not having to hire people with specialty skills. If that gamble pays off, then it will be like using a sliderule. Kids won’t learn it because it isn’t a skill that’s in demand anymore. If AI turns out to be a niche thing, rather than a massively transformational technology, then tomorrow’s kids will learn to be programmers in whatever languages are hot in 20 years.
OpenAI wants people to rely on their products, sure. But, they’re not in a position to “deskill” people. In the grand scheme of things they’re just a small vendor. A random software company in Montana isn’t going to deliberately deskill their employees to improve OpenAI’s bottom line.
They each have their own services and they’re competing against each-other to be the best / only contender. The goal is to come up with a product that makes them money. They don’t care if it’s used by unskilled or highly skilled people. And, they’re certainly not out there trying to work together to remove people’s skills.
You don’t need a conspiracy to motivate companies to make you dependent on their subscription service. Their goal is not to deskill workers for evil’s sake. They the norm to be using their systems instead of your brain.
Are you assuming you’re just getting access to the model for free? So far some of these things have been available for free, but I think that’s only because the AI companies are desperately trying to get traction before the bubble pops.
When the bubble pops, do you think these giants stand a chance?
This all started on consumer hardware. It’s driven by aggressively publishing whitepapers. There’s already a decentralized ecosystem of randos fine-tuning released models. And all signs point to faster development and refined data beating raw scale.
If complexity goes down another order of magnitude from DeepSeek R1, you’ll see FOSS organizations roll their own models from scratch.
Another, and it’ll be individual hobbyists.
Whatever’s available for free is the first choice for companies evaluating “good enough,” because it’s hard to get cheaper than free.
It started on consumer hardware, but the models that are supposedly good enough to replace an employee are the ones that took billions to develop.
Can you get something useful on consumer hardware? Probably. Is it world changing, enough to cause developers to lose their jobs? Maybe? But, it seems unlikely to me.
DeepSeek claims they spent six million, are they actually accounting for everything they spent, or are they trying to make it seem like they spent less than they really did?
It’s not possible to make you unskilled if you’re skilled. At worst, you’d get rusty. It is possible that your skills might not be in high demand anymore though.
The only thing that would make programmers not be in demand is if “vibe coding” were truly producing a better product than traditional programming. So far, the only ones making that claim are the ones desperately trying to sell “AI” before the bubble bursts. It’s true that there are some companies that really want to believe it. But, companies are always desperately hoping for something that can allow them to fire their expensive workers. It’s rare that that works out.
It’s been aggressively pushed upon new programmers though, a whole generation who might potentially never develop skills to begin with
So was Mountain Dew. That doesn’t mean people had to drink it.
You are thinking to short term
This is not about you, but the next generations
In that case it’s not talking about “deskilling”, it’s about “not skilling in the first place”.
But, those are completely different things. I was never skilled in riding horses, the way I assume my great grandparents were. I didn’t learn how to use a sliderule like my grandfather did. But, I still learned skills that were valuable for the moment in history where I grew up. There’s never any guarantee that a baby born today will get to the age of 20 with skills that are useful enough that someone will pay them to use those skills.
As for programming, it isn’t some kind of nefarious goal to make sure that tomorrow’s children won’t know how to do it. It’s an immediate short-term goal to try to save money by not having to hire people with specialty skills. If that gamble pays off, then it will be like using a sliderule. Kids won’t learn it because it isn’t a skill that’s in demand anymore. If AI turns out to be a niche thing, rather than a massively transformational technology, then tomorrow’s kids will learn to be programmers in whatever languages are hot in 20 years.
No, it’s about deskilling the workforce. Not an individual
That just sounds like a conspiracy theory.
Might be, but it’s obvious that they want people to rely on their products and then sell it as a subscription. Like everything else
Who are the various "they"s in that sentence?
OpenAI wants people to rely on their products, sure. But, they’re not in a position to “deskill” people. In the grand scheme of things they’re just a small vendor. A random software company in Montana isn’t going to deliberately deskill their employees to improve OpenAI’s bottom line.
Large tech are all in cahoots here, their motivation aligns
Ms, OpenAI, google, apple. All need line to keep going up by making people increasingly reliant on their live services
I’m not necessarily saying that deskilling is the goal, but it certainly helps them.
They each have their own services and they’re competing against each-other to be the best / only contender. The goal is to come up with a product that makes them money. They don’t care if it’s used by unskilled or highly skilled people. And, they’re certainly not out there trying to work together to remove people’s skills.
You don’t need a conspiracy to motivate companies to make you dependent on their subscription service. Their goal is not to deskill workers for evil’s sake. They the norm to be using their systems instead of your brain.
I don’t need a conspiracy to motivate companies to make me dependent on whose subscription service?
Did you miss some words here?
Good enough and cheaper beats higher quality, ninety-nine times out of a hundred.
Sure, but which option is cheaper?
A local model. No contest. A desktop computer costs vanishingly little, compared to human labor.
The issue you need to worry about is “good enough.”
Are you assuming you’re just getting access to the model for free? So far some of these things have been available for free, but I think that’s only because the AI companies are desperately trying to get traction before the bubble pops.
When the bubble pops, do you think these giants stand a chance?
This all started on consumer hardware. It’s driven by aggressively publishing whitepapers. There’s already a decentralized ecosystem of randos fine-tuning released models. And all signs point to faster development and refined data beating raw scale.
If complexity goes down another order of magnitude from DeepSeek R1, you’ll see FOSS organizations roll their own models from scratch.
Another, and it’ll be individual hobbyists.
Whatever’s available for free is the first choice for companies evaluating “good enough,” because it’s hard to get cheaper than free.
It started on consumer hardware, but the models that are supposedly good enough to replace an employee are the ones that took billions to develop.
Can you get something useful on consumer hardware? Probably. Is it world changing, enough to cause developers to lose their jobs? Maybe? But, it seems unlikely to me.
OpenAI spent billions. DeekSeek spent six million. A lot of whitepapers are about making that number shrink.
Model size is not a measure of power, either. Current desktop stuff beats last year’s big boys. Small models train faster.
Whether that’s ever enough to let any dipshit program professionally remains to be seen. But I didn’t think we’d get this far.
DeepSeek claims they spent six million, are they actually accounting for everything they spent, or are they trying to make it seem like they spent less than they really did?