←back to thread

Enrollment at trade schools is expected to grow

(finance.yahoo.com)
64 points m-hodges | 7 comments | 30 Aug 25 22:47 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
prisenco ◴[30 Aug 25 23:35 UTC] No.45078963[source]▶
For junior devs wondering if they picked the right path, remember that the world still needs software, ai still breaks down at even a small bit of complexity, and the first ones to abandon this career will be those who only did it for money anyways and they’ll do the same once the trades have a rough year (as they always do).

In the meantime keep learning and practicing cs fundamentals, ignore hype and build something interesting.

replies(5): >>45079011 #>>45079019 #>>45079029 #>>45079186 #>>45079322 #
kragen ◴[31 Aug 25 00:42 UTC] No.45079322[source]▶
Nobody has any idea what AI is going to look like five years from now. Five years ago we had GPT-2; AI couldn't code at all. Five years from now AI might still break down at even a small bit of complexity, or it might be installing air conditioners, or it might be colonizing Mercury and putting humans in zoos.

Anyone who tells you they know what the future looks like five years from now is lying.

replies(2): >>45079366 #>>45079457 #
1. tmn ◴[31 Aug 25 00:51 UTC] No.45079366[source]▶
There’s a significant difference between predicting what it will specifically look like, and predicting sets of possibilities it won’t look like
replies(1): >>45079424 #
2. kragen ◴[31 Aug 25 01:04 UTC] No.45079424[source]▶
No, there isn't. When speaking of logically consistent possibilities, the two problems are precisely isomorphic under Boolean negation.
replies(1): >>45079980 #
3. bryanrasmussen ◴[31 Aug 25 03:00 UTC] No.45079980[source]▶
good point, someone recently said

> Five years from now AI might still break down at even a small bit of complexity, or it might be installing air conditioners, or it might be colonizing Mercury and putting humans in zoos.

do all these seem logically consistent possibilities to you?

replies(1): >>45080025 #
4. kragen ◴[31 Aug 25 03:07 UTC] No.45080025{3}[source]▶
Yes, obviously. You presumably don't know what "consistent" means in logic, and your untutored intuition is misleading you into guessing that possibilities like those could conceivably be inconsistent.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistency

replies(1): >>45080085 #
5. bryanrasmussen ◴[31 Aug 25 03:21 UTC] No.45080085{4}[source]▶
or I just wanted to make sure that you were adamant that the list of those three possibilities were equally probable, to reiterate

> AI might still break down at even a small bit of complexity, or it might be installing air conditioners, or it might be colonizing Mercury and putting humans in zoos.

that each of these things, being logically consistent, have equal chances of being the case 5 years from now?

replies(1): >>45080090 #
6. kragen ◴[31 Aug 25 03:22 UTC] No.45080090{5}[source]▶
No. Fuck off. There's no uniform probability distribution over the reals, so stop trying to put bullshit in my mouth.
replies(1): >>45080962 #
7. bryanrasmussen ◴[31 Aug 25 06:53 UTC] No.45080962{6}[source]▶
OK well you obviously seem to be having some bad time about something in your life right now so I won't continue, other than to note the comment that started this said

>There’s a significant difference between predicting what it will specifically look like, and predicting sets of possibilities it won’t look like

which I took to mean there are probability distributions around what things will happen, and it seemed to be your assertion that there wasn't, that a number of things only one of which seemed especially probable, were equally probable. I'm glad to learn you don't think this as it seems totally crazy, especially for someone praising LLMs which after all spend their time making millions of little choices based on probability.