I'd like to consider myself somewhere towards the middle of the spectrum on AI outlook, but posts like yours in this thread depress me. It's difficult for me not to see it as spreading FOMO so that you can gain financially.
When's the last time you worked as an IC? Is there any reason to take your opinions on "my job" seriously when downward pressure on salaries is only beneficial to you and whatever AI companies you're attempting to start?
"The world will be better off as a whole". Why do you think this? How are you contributing to making the world better with AI? Is there any reason that's not related to making money?
I'm trying to help you by sharing and you're choosing to be dark and gloomy about it. I can only help so much.
What you did a few years ago will likely dry up as a source of supporting you and your family. There is all kinds of new value to create in the world. Find the calling that is meaningful to you. Go cure cancer instead of plumbing widgets and wizbobs at 100k QPS active-active five nines SLA.
Just don't stay as a gas station pump attendant, butter churner, or elevator button presser.
And it's also wild that you assume what I'm doing doesn't bring value to the world. There's a film being released theatrically in a few months that directly incorporates what I've worked on. I've been a filmmaker for decades outside of tech and that is deeply meaningful to me.
I didn’t assume, I asked. But you’re being particularly condescending, so I guess that’s where we’re at.
“Directly incorporates” is pretty vague and still seems like it’s financial, but good for you. I hope it’s something that assists artists and doesn’t replace them. Personally it’s hard for me to find meaning in something like that, given the thread’s context of “I don’t even look at the code”. What craft was done? In what way is the movie better now? It’s cheaper?
I won’t endorse glee about anyone losing their job, even if it means people with a lot of freedom can throw things at the wall and see what sticks. Same story as always, it’s just faster now.
I wasn't being condescending, that's just text's inability to encode delivery.
You don't look at the bytecode you produce. You don't know 99.99% of your stack. You are a master of abstraction and you always have been. This is just a different flavor of the same recipe.
You've got a tool that will let you execute at greater breadth than ever before. Like what it must've been like for the very first engineers who had access to the internet or the first libraries or package managers.
Job flux is demand finding new salients. Employment hasn't dipped as far as I can tell. There are more exciting opportunities now than ever before, you just have to step into it.
In the spirit of this forum and at the risk of being very cringe, I’d guess that’s like being the founder of a company versus being one of the early employees :)
That's what the person you replied to is talking about, and they're right. Putting aside the final byte size (where protobuf also wins), protobuf is faster at both encoding and decoding than json. There are numerous benchmarks you can find that show this.
The advantages of json are not related to performance.
No, protobuf is not faster, not on Python, because google's implementation is poor. Python is the #1 language in the world right now. Don't use protobuf.
If you're writing JS you cannot beat JSON.parse, because you're running the most optimized C++ implementation of JSON which will outcompete any decoder written JS itself.
It is generally correct. When both implementations are completely in the same language Protobuf will win. Instead of a pure-JS implementation one can also make a FFI module for Protobuf.
The comparison that's being made is equivalent to implementing quick sort in Python and bubble sort in C++ and then declaring bubble sort is the better alternative.
Anyone with a healthy understading of computer science and programming experience will not make bullshit claims like that.
You say 'generally correct', but then to make it correct you have to make a bunch of specific constraints. That's not general. I'm comparing the FFI using library in python to the json library in python, and json is faster for me. I showed how in the post. You are welcome to find my mistake.
I was the grandparent reply and I meant to only carve out "you cannot write anything in JavaScript faster than anything written in tuned C, and json.parse is the latter".
Which link were you comparing FFI in python to json in python? The link I see seems to be about pure JavaScript language Protobuf impls vs json.parse?
I get what you’re saying, but I wouldn’t say easy is the opposite of challenging. As a quick example, I would surely find a day job of manual labor harder and significantly less enjoyable than a day job of software engineering challenges.
(And please note that I do not mean to imply that there are no challenges in manual labor or that software engineering is more important.)
And I'm sorry to you and the parent poster for being needlessly snarky, I wasn't in a great mood when I wrote my original comment. I'll avoid bothered-posting in the future ;).
People seem to think you’re attacking the article. I read the article but know nothing about aquaponics otherwise, and I was wondering why we don’t see it used more. So I appreciate you sharing your knowledge on the subject.
"Sufficiently developed" seems like a cheap proof. There are still many non-technological problems above and below it.
For example, how do you ensure everyone on the road has a self-driving car? We've sufficiently developed electric cars, but they're not nearly the majority.
> We've sufficiently developed electric cars, but they're not nearly the majority.
Just to further support your point, sufficiently developed electric cars' batteries still doesn't have the energy density of fossil fuels, so they can't replace any and every use case.
For example, can we carry or generate the energy these cars requires to move unimpeded like ICE vehicles yet? Or, did we improve the procedures and materials so these cars can be extinguished faster, more reliably and securely then their previous generation counterparts? Or did battery recycling methods became cheap and efficient enough yet, so we can reuse these batteries and at least not increase mining on our planet? Etc. Etc.
I'm not against renewables or electric cars, but even in their current form, we need to solve many problems to make them more practical and even less impactful when compared to their ICE counterparts.
reply