this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
765 points (98.7% liked)

Programmer Humor

32479 readers
274 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 96 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] R00bot@lemmy.blahaj.zone 85 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Shareholders: why not all three?

[–] Tolookah@discuss.tchncs.de 38 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Hedge fund manager: hold my beer.

[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 36 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Humanity: yes, let's replace all of the above. 100% unemployment rate is the only way to go.

[–] hazeebabee@slrpnk.net 1 points 5 months ago

Honestly 100% unemployed becuase we have a good universal income system or something would be great. But sadly it looks like we're in a different timeline :(

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 19 points 5 months ago (1 children)

*Several steps later*

Narrator: And that, folks, is how we got the Utopia we live in, by replacing all the work with AI, and letting people enjoy their lives

[–] r00ty@kbin.life 10 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Haha. No. Nothing so hopeful. The rich people will get even richer and everyone that used to be working class and middle class die a slow death.

[–] Gutek8134@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

Now I wander what would happen if only rich people would survive and I'm sure somebody has already written an sf book about that

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Yeah. That's (arguably) the background scenario to Asimov's book "The Naked Sun" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Sun

Edit: Ooh, Django already gave a cooler link to the same: https://discuss.tchncs.de/comment/10729278

[–] hydroptic@sopuli.xyz 35 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Considering that C-suite executives are usually fantastically expensive, they'd be a logical position to automate (assuming AI worked like suits think it does). For some veeeery strange reason no board of directors has suggested replacing themselves with AIs

[–] NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone 21 points 5 months ago (1 children)

It’d be super easy to replace Sam Altman with a bot that spits out keywords known to increase OpenAI shares.

Waitaminute… Sam alt-man?

[–] Skepticpunk@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

I know, right? It's like he's an incredibly shitty sci-fi villain.

[–] quicken@aussie.zone 1 points 5 months ago

CEO is the first role to go!

[–] iAvicenna@lemmy.world 51 points 5 months ago (1 children)

given that LLMs and gen AIs are great at talking bullshit and creating presentations, one is a more realistic expectation than the other

[–] whereisk@lemmy.world 12 points 5 months ago

I'll believe AI can replace engineers when I see NVIDIA firing them. But like the graphic says, the manager's job seems a lot easier to replace instead.

[–] palordrolap@kbin.run 38 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Managers might not like people but they don't want to get rid of them. There's no cheap thrill from micromanaging an AI.

[–] OpenStars 15 points 5 months ago

100,000% this - money or even utility seems to not be everything, compared to feeling self-importance

[–] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 10 points 5 months ago

Plus it's harder to pass the buck and blame an AI for your screw ups. It would be perceived, as the kids say, as a skills issue.

[–] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 7 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Yes. In big established companies they are managing managers.

In smaller companies, no

[–] Restaldt@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

In bigger company's C levels manage VPs who manage directors who manage managers

It's management alll the way down

[–] palordrolap@kbin.run 1 points 5 months ago

Depends on the size of the company.

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

Owners: with AI we can finally get rid of everyone

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 29 points 5 months ago (2 children)

If we fire all developers and allow AIs to program themselves, the AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.

[–] tastysnacks@programming.dev 8 points 5 months ago

Can we build an AI manager that just keeps asking for different shades of red?

[–] MajorHavoc@programming.dev 1 points 5 months ago

AIs are going to commit virtual seppuku after a few days.

Yes. And that's our best case scenario. Worst case is a wildly incompetent, but still effective form of SkyNet.

[–] kbal@fedia.io 20 points 5 months ago (2 children)

It's the marketing department that should really be worried.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 6 points 5 months ago

Like the C level isn't the marketing department

[–] Carighan@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago

And to be fair, like always, good marketing is genius stuff.

But it also feels rare. I suspect precisely because C-suite and upper management love to mess with it, so the rote marketing approach gets normalized, which in turn drives all the decent marketing people away.

[–] Amir@lemmy.ml 8 points 5 months ago

Only one of them gets to make the decision to fire the other

[–] stanka@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 months ago

Could probably replace managers with AI, but being trained on most managers would mean it would be equally bad at its job.

I think the most likely is for the artists jobs to go away as art doesn't have to be exact, but code does.

[–] deweydecibel@lemmy.world 5 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Maybe the central problem is racing to put other people out of work period, regardless of who they are. Maybe putting people out of work is not a net benefit for society, it's actually negative in the long run, and only truly a benefit for shareholders. They don't need any more of those at the expense of the working class.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 4 points 5 months ago

Ideally, nobody should have to work.

The problem is that labor-saving technology is never permitted to save labor. We make those displaced laborers go do other shit.

[–] LwL@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

It should be a net benefit for society. Any system in which it isn't is a very flawed system. Like most of the world right now.