I think it's even more pernicious than the paper describes as cultural outputs, art, and writing aren't done to solve a problem, they're expressions that don't have a pure utility purpose. There's no "final form" for these things, and they change constantly, like language.

All of these AI outputs are both polluting the commons where they pulled all their training data AND are alienating the creators of these cultural outputs via displacement of labor and payment, which means that general purpose models are starting to run out of contemporary, low-cost training data.

So either training data is going to get more expensive because you're going to have to pay creators, or these models will slowly drift away from the contemporary cultural reality.

We'll see where it all lands, but it seems clear that this is a circular problem with a time delay, and we're just waiting to see what the downstream effect will be.

Yes! One could argue that we might end up with programmers (experts) going through a training of creating software manually first, before becoming operators of AI, and then also spending regularly some of their working time (10 - 20%?) on keeping these skills sharp - by working on purely education projects, in the old school way; but it begs the question:

Does it then really speeds us up and generally makes things better?

I kinda fear that this is an economic plane stall, we're tilting upward so much, the underlying conditions are about to dissolve

And I'd add, that recent LLMs magic (i admit they reached a maturity level that is hard to deny) is also a two edged sword, they don't create abstraction often, they create a very well made set of byproducts (code, conf, docs, else) to realize your demand, but people right now don't need to create new improved methods, frameworks, paradigms because the LLM doesn't have our mental constraints.. (maybe later reasoning LLMs will tackle that, plausibly)

The author's conclusion feels even more relevant today: AI automation doesn’t really remove human difficulty—it just moves it around, often making it harder to notice and more risky. And even after a human steps in, there’s usually a lot of follow-up and adjustment work left to do. Thanks for surfacing these uncomfortable but relevant insights

>the present generation of automated systems, which are monitored by former manual operators, are riding on their skills, which later generations of operators cannot be expected to have.

But we are in the later generation now. All the 1983 operators are now retired, and today's factory operators have never had the experience of 'doing it by hand'.

Operators still have skills, but it's 'what to do when the machine fails' rather than 'how to operate fully manually'. Many systems cannot be operated fully manually under any conditions.

And yet they're still doing great. Factory automation has been wildly successful and is responsible for why manufactured goods are so plentiful and inexpensive today.

>skills, which later generations of operators cannot be expected to have.

You can't ring more true than this. For decades now.

For a couple years there I was able to get some ML together and it helped me get my job done, never came close to AI, I only had kilobytes of memory anyway.

By the time 1983 rolled around I could see the writing on the wall, AI was going to take over a good share of automation tasks in a more intelligent way by bumping the expert systems up a notch. Sometimes this is going to be a quantum notch and it could end up like "expertise squared" or "productivity squared" [0]. At the rarefied upper bound. Using programmable electronics to multiply the abilities of the true expert whilst simultaneously the expert utilized their abilities to multiply the effectiveness of the electronics. Maybe only reaching the apex when the most experienced domain expert does the programming, or at least runs the show.

Never did see that paper, but it was obvious to many.

I probably mentioned this before, but that's when I really bucked down for a lifetime of experimental natural science across a very broad range of areas which would be more & more suitable for automation. While operating professionally within a very narrow niche where personal participation would remain the source of truth long enough for compounding to occur. I had already been a strong automation pioneer in my own environment.

So I was always fine regardless of the overall automation landscape, and spent the necessary decades across thousands of surprising edge cases getting an idea how I would make it possible for someone else to even accomplish some of these difficult objectives, or perhaps one day fully automate. If the machine intelligence ever got good enough. Along with the other electronics, which is one of the areas I was concentrating on.

One of the key strategies did turn out to be outliving those who had extensive troves of their own findings, but I really have not automated that much. As my experience level becomes less common, people seem to want me to perform in person with greater desire every decade :\

There's related concepts for that too, some more intelligent than others ;)

[0] With a timely nod to a college room mate who coined the term "bullshit squared"

I mean how did you get an expert programmer before ? Surely it can’t be harder to learn to program with ai than without ai. It’s written in the book of resnet.

You could swap out ai with google or stackoverflow or documentation or unix…

The same argument was there about needing to be an expert programmer in assembly language to use C, and then same for C and Python, and then Python and CUDA, and then Theano/Tensorflow/Pytorch.

And yet here we are, able to talk to a computer, that writes Pytorch code that orchestrates the complexity below it. And even talks back coherently sometimes.

Your first problem doesn’t feel new at all. Reminded me of a situation several years ago. What was previous Excel report was automated into PowerBI. Great right? Time saved. Etc.

But the report was very wrong for months. Maybe longer. And since it was automated, the instinct to check and validate was gone. And tracking down the problem required extra work that hadn’t been part of the Excel flow

I use this example in all of my automation conversations to remind people to be thoughtful about where and when they automate.

The way you put that makes be think of the current challenge younger generations are having with technology in general. Kids who were raised on touch screen interfaces vs kids in older generations who were raised on computers that required more technical skill to figure out.

In the same way, when everything just works, there will be no difference, but when something goes wrong, the person who learned the skills before will have a distinct advantage.

The question is if AI gets good enough that slowing down occasionally to find a specialist is tenable. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be predicably not perfect.

Expertw will always be needed, but they may be more like car mechanics, there to fix hopefully rare issues and provide a tune up, rather than building the cars themselves.

I used to be a maintenance data analyst in a welding plant welding about 1 million units per month.

I was the only person in the factory who was a qualified welder.

They also made the point that the less frequent failures become, the more tedious it is for the human operator to check for them, giving the example of AI agents providing verbose plans of what they intend to do that are mostly fine, but will occasionally contain critical failures that the operator is supposed to catch.

That's how it tends to go, automation removes some parts of the work but creates more complexity. Sooner or later that will also be automated away, and so on and so forth. AGI evangelists ought to read Marx's Capital.

Comparisons with deterministic tools such as calculators will always lead astray. There is no comparable situation where faced with a new problem the AI will just give up. If there is the need for an expert, the need is always there, because there is no indication external to the process that the process will fail.

Calculators don't do math, they do calculating. Which is to say, they don't think for you. There's not much value in being able to quickly compute some expression in a world with calculators. But there's a huge value in knowing how to know which numbers to feed into the calculation.

We already have generational programming decay. At 25 years old, kids fresh out of uni can’t write a string.contains() routine. They all use .stream() in Java. Matter of generation, fashion and skills to learn. And concerning the programming of C drivers, Apple is the last company to write a filesystem and they already can’t find anyone able to do it.

Yes, but (to write the second half of your post for you!) regulation and incentives are very different in the aviation industry, because safety and planning for long-tail risks is paramount. Therefore airlines can afford to have their pilots spend thousands of hours training on manual control in various scenarios. By contrast, I don’t think the average software development org will encourage its engineers to hand-roll a sizable proportion of their code, if (still a big if) there are major productivity costs in doing so. Rushing the Next Big Feature out the door will almost always beat out long-term investment in dev training, unfortunately.

Don’t get me wrong - manual practice is in some sense the correct solution, and I plan to try and do it myself in the next decade to make sure my skills stay sharp. But I don’t see the industry broadly encouraging it, still less making it mandatory as aviation does.

Addendum: as you probably know, even in aviation, this is hard to get right. (This is sometimes called the “children of the magenta” problem, but it’s really Bainbridge again.) The most famous example is perhaps Air France Flight 447[0], where the pilots put the plane into a stall at 35,000ft when they reacted poorly after the autopilot disconnecting, and did not even realize they had stalled the plane. Of course, that crash itself led to more regulations around training in manual scenarios too.

[0] https://admiralcloudberg.medium.com/the-long-way-down-the-cr...

I’ve been using LLMs to code for some time and I look at it differently.

I ask myself if I need to understand the code, and if the answer is yes I don’t use an LLM. It’s not a matter of discipline, it’s a sober view of what the minimal amount of work for me is.

I have wasted too much time wishing I could find the motivation to work on coding projects. And there are times that I was able to force myself to just get started. Spin up the flywheel and let momentum carry me.

But I'm talking about a consistent problem for more than 25 years. AI agents didn't do this to me. At least in my anecdotal case, this isn't atrophy. It's just the way it has always been. Now I actually have much less friction in getting a project going. I can just type a few of my thoughts at an agent and away it goes. The momentum is almost free, now.

I haven't written any code in 6 months. But I can still remember how to code in 6502 machine code from the 1980s.

This just sounds like addiction to the dopamine of instant gratification.

I'm convinced the best use of these systems will be an explicit two-phase process where they just help people prototype and see and learn how to command regular software.

For example, imagine describing what files you want to find, and getting back a command-line string of find/grep piping. It doesn't execute anything without confirmation, it doesn't "summarize" the results, it's just a narrow tutor to help people in a translation step. A tool for learning that, ideally, eventually puts itself out of a job.

Returning to your PDF scenario: The LLM could help people weave together regular tools of "find regions with keywords" and "extract table as spreadsheet" and "cross-reference two spreadsheets using column values", etc.

Peter Drucker popularized the phrase "Efficiency is doing things right; effectiveness is doing the right things."

Being a credibly efficient at doing the wrong things, turns out to be a massive issue inside of most companies. What's interesting is I do think that AI gives opportunity to be massively more effective because if you have the right LLM, that's trained right, you can explore a variety of scenarios much faster than what you can do by yourself. However, we hear very little about this as a central thrust of how to utilize AI into the work space.

Ooh, that should be cdn.jsdelivr.net (ver vs vr). Good catch!

> "Most companies are efficiency-obsessed. Hence, they also expect AI solutions to increase “productivity”

So this is true on paper, but I can tell you that companies don't broadly do a very good job of being efficient. What they do a good job of is doing the bare minimum in a number of situations, generating fragile, messy, annoying, or tech-debt-ridden systems / processes / etc.

Companies regularly claim to make objective and efficient decisions, but often those decisions amount to little more than doing a half-assed job because it will save money and will probably be good enough. The "probably" does a lot of work here, and then "probably" is not good enough there's a lot of blame shifting / politics / bullshitting.

The idea that companies are efficient is generally not very realistic except when it comes to things with real, measurable costs, such as manufacturing.

Not necessarily. It depends if the process is deterministic and repeatable.

If an AI generates a process more quickly than a human, and the process can be run deterministically, and the outputs are testable, then the process can run without direct human supervision after initial testing - which is how most automated processes work.

The testing should happen anyway, so any speed increase in process generation is a productivity gain.

Human monitoring only matters if the AI is continually improvising new solutions to dynamic problems and the solutions are significantly wrong/unreliable.

Which is a management/analysis problem, and no different in principle to managing a team.

The key difference in practice is that you can hire and fire people on a team, you can intervene to change goals and culture, and you can rearrange roles.

With an agentic workflow you can change the prompts, use different models, and redesign the flow. But your choices are more constrained.

Superhuman can mean different things though. Most software developers in industry are very very slow and so superhuman, for them, may still be less than what is humanly achievable for someone else. It's not a binary situation

Being down to human speed of reviewing code that already passes tests could still be a massive increase over 12 months’ ago pace.

What do you mean by orchestration?