Only the highest and lowest level jobs are available. Someone needs to report to shareholders and plan. If a PM can just write tickets and they get done, then you just need one PM.
Maybe this isn't practical today, but in 2, 5, 10 years? I still have to work 30-40 years before I retire, what do I do?
One argument may be that ownership is the last role for a human in a business. The firm exists to show ownership of an AI and provides a mechanism for managing its proceeds.
Yeah ok. First of all, just because it sucks now, it doesn't mean we're still safe in just 24 months. Everyone was mocking AI 24 months ago.
Second, most of the work out there is not at all about "production quality 3D engine," that's the whole point. Most of us have been doing the same repetitive work for decades. Move this button here. Fix the bug here.
Sure it's not as easy as it looks, but if the average guy can spit out an acceptable app/page in 60 seconds, most people won't even be able to tell the difference.
> such a smart machine figure out to switch the modes
Because it's not smart. We keep confusing verbosity with smartness. AI will happily keep yapping nonsense to an inattentive listener. An actually smart entity would not do that if not acting maliciously.
The worst part is that every company with a tasks product works right towards Jira. Compare what GitHub issues were in 2014 to what they are today: https://github.com/features/issues
I'm 90% those features were among the top issues on github/github repo back when it used to be there. The joke was always about how barebones github issues were was a common thing troughout the 2010s. Once they added that whole "Projects" thing, the joke became how complicated it is.
It seems like bad engineering culture though. If it was well engineered, then there would be simple concepts as a basis, upon which the product builds higher level, more complex things, that those targeted users think they need. Then there would be one API that is for the simple concepts, that lets people simply have tasks and get things done, potentially building a simpler UI on top of that API. The product itself could have a simple mode or higher level concepts mode.
If you read other people's comments here though, this is not what Jira APIs look like. Instead you have cruft built upon cruft, ever increasing in complexity, and seemingly no engineer was allowed to look back and fix things, find good concepts to represent things on a lower level. Lets build more features, accumulating more cruft on top, instead of fixing a broken design.
Sounds like it's CSS' fault then. I think that just like they introduced `display:contents` to remove wrappers, they should also introduce a way to group elements as if they had a common ancestor.
Seems the original ::contents proposal is where it's at now, though there hasn't been action on it for some time. Not sure if they hit a snag or it's just on the back burner
Good idea. Together with ::after / ::before and content: (which can insert text into the website) it might then be possible to create a website without any HTML, only CSS.
With CSS Grid math you can fake it, at least. If your DL is `display: grid;` and if you have a few extra DIVs lying around at the bottom of the DL to be borders around combined cells you just have to math which rows/columns you want to draw a border around and make the div fit that combined shape.
I think this varies by expectation. If you use voice, their response will be shorter and more human. If you write, you will get a whole article in response. This lets you get to what matters to you faster, as long as you're able to skim documents.
If I write and want a short response I preface it with "be brief." Sadly it doesn't work 100% of the time
The only jobs left are manual jobs at small scale (think waiters, cleaners, nurses), but only because robots still aren't good enough.
LLMs have shown us that all the jobs we once thought were safe (creative, coding) are really not safe at all.
Even if it results in AI slop, you can clearly tell that people don't mind and don't realize.
reply