Isn't that the nature of tech? In the past most programmers needed to focus on low level details while today most devs kit together libraries and services and yet there are more then ever and salaries are higher then ever.
I think nobody that enters tech expects that in 20 years we "code" as we do today but we will still build stuff and need to solve problems... and there are enough problems to solve.
That's pretty much the case. We keep building layers and abstracting away.
Being a prompt wizard won't pay as well as directly writing code for the AI systems. They're different layers. There won't be more people directly developing software than there are today in the US market, there may be more overall jobs in and around the process however (ie the tech industry will continue to expand to more people in terms of employment; benefits will weaken, median pay will fall).
Most software developers will be prompt wizards, with required degrees that say they know how to be effective prompt wizards. Then there will be a lot of supporting roles, oversight roles.
More jobs in the industry, lower skill levels, less pay.
I think we push complexity forward. I agree in the sense that the pure dev part will require less bandwidth for most but the free bandwidth allows us to push complexity forward into different domains. My father still needed to punch card to code and now we can setup an app with a few clicks world wide that uses NN to solve a task and that all by ourself.
So demand will be high for cross domain knowledge like Fullstack/ML + Domain X.
If you're a high skill programmer that has domain knowledge re AI, you'll do very well in the future, whether 5 or 20 years out.
We simultaneously won't need and won't want the majority of software developers that exist today (the sheer number of them), writing code in the future. That would be a bad outcome.
They're going to end up more valuable as prompt wizards and checkpoint decision makers, because the AI will be drastically better at writing code (in all respects) than they could ever be. And they're going to get paid less because more people will be able to do it, software development will become a lot less intimidating as a field. It'll be more mass market as a field, akin to being a nurse (4.2 million registered nurses in the US).
A possibility, and I think the way we work will evolve as well. But coming from a more "numerical" background, I can imagine a different route. Twenty years or longer ago, people who wanted to process a larger amount of data needed to
understand low-level details, compilers, C/C++/Fortran, mathematical details, and so on. Today, we have JAX, scikit-learn, and many more tools. But these tools did not make the old 'numerical' people jobless; instead, their jobs evolved. Today, we have more data scientists than ever. You can create your own app faster than years ago, including hosting, persistent storage, load balancing, ... And again, we have more web developers than ever. The same goes for jobs like DevOps and other jobs that I probably don't even know. The level of abstraction got higher as you better now what the algorithm is doing but you do not need to implement it again. The point is the field will evolve, and right now, it may be the biggest jump ever, but that does not mean jobs will go away. We might end up in a situation like self-driving, where we are really close but still missing the last bit and need human intervention. I hope LLMs will solve the tasks that have been solved many times before, like bootstrapping a CRUD app, and we can focus on the edge cases and niche problems.
Don’t you think that web3 would also end up centralized?
The underlying technology might be decentralized but the ownership is not. For web2 we have more or less working mechanisms like antitrust offices, on the blockchain we do not. In a proof of stacks scenario we would have the power distributed in a plutocratic fashion without mechanism for the many to counter balance the mighty few.
delegating authority to an open and permissionless network of participants doesn't magically solve the problems of centralization, it mostly just subverts the progress we've made as a species towards mitigating those problems
It is so good to see progress in these areas. They are so fundamental that we do not think about them (fundamental in the
sense that we just assume they are there) a lot.
I have some infos on heat-pumps but do you have a good source about the state of smart-grid?
A lot of companies build web api's around their ML/AI code and data pipelines in Python, is Mojo suited for these task
as well or is it specialized for numerical/AI/ML tasked?
For work I would need a good interface for SQL. In pet projects I am using sqlx for Rust and sqlc for Python. In both you can write SQL directly and get query validation and parsing into struct / PyDantic for free. Is there something like this for Deno?
They put some work into the Python adoption and it is enough for smaller projects but I did not try it for to complex use cases. You can see it under examples.
What is nice is that you can set the option to parse into PyDantic rather the dataclasses.
From what I understand geothermal itself refers to heat of the earth (crust) while geothermal energy refers to energy generated within the earth mainly but not exclusive, nuclear decay. Calling ground heat geothermal is therefore correct, calling it geothermal energy is not.
(see: https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/geothermal...)
Did you consider that you might not have the right contract for this type of situation? There a lot of jobs (hospitals, consultancy, ...) that do not fit the standard work agreement (08:00-17:00, 1h lunch, 40h/week).
The law is strict here for the case that it turns out that your agreement was in fact not mutual and your employer expects you to work normal after your overtime phase without rewarding you for it.
The german law is convoluted and can be inflexible but more often then not there are solutions.
I am also not sure why you would be afraid talking about it?
