For instance, if an AI model could complete a one-hour task with 50% success, it only had a 25% chance of successfully completing a two-hour task. This indicates that for 99% reliability, task duration must be reduced by a factor of 70.
This is interesting. I have noticed this myself. Generally, when an LLM boosts productivity, it shoots back a solution very quickly, and after a quick sanity check, I can accept it and move on. When it has trouble, that’s something of a red flag. You might get there eventually by probing it more and more, but there is good reason for pessimism if it’s taking too long.
In the worst case scenario where you ask it a coding problem for which there is no solution—it’s just not possible to do what you’re asking—it may nevertheless engage you indefinitely until you eventually realize it’s running you around in circles. I’ve wasted a whole afternoon with that nonsense.
Anyway, I worry that companies are no longer hiring junior devs. Today’s juniors are tomorrow’s elites and there is going to be a talent gap in a decade that LLMs—in their current state at least—seem unlikely to fill.
I’ve spent decades programming C++. I wonder how it would’ve been had I started with C++11 or later? I feel like I had to do a lot of unlearning with that release which made things more difficult perhaps that they needed to be?
Similarly, I started Python towards the end of 2 and had to unlearn for 3. I seem to have bad timing in these things…