I recently read an article suggesting that OpenAI's o1 model could significantly impact the future of traditional coding. Interestingly, Jensen Huang, the CEO of NVIDIA, has expressed a similar sentiment, predicting that the rise of AI might lead to a decline in coding jobs. He even suggested that young people consider exploring alternative career paths such as biology, education, manufacturing, or agriculture.
It's ironic to consider that machine learning, a field designed to automate tasks, including aspects of coding, is now being perceived as a threat to the very profession it was intended to assist.
This old post (How Artificial Neural Networks Are Convoluting Agricultural Engineering) still relevant, isn't it?
The post concluded that the application of AI in agriculture often prioritizes academic and professional advancement over addressing real-world challenges. This trend leads to several negative consequences:
Misallocation of resources: Efforts are focused on developing AI solutions for the sake of publication and funding, rather than solving existing agricultural problems.
Talent drain and expertise gap: Qualified professionals are leaving agriculture for other industries, while non-experts are being brought in, potentially hindering progress.
Overreliance on AI: AI is viewed as a panacea, neglecting the need for complementary solutions and infrastructure.
Insufficient training: Agricultural engineers are not adequately prepared to leverage AI effectively, as their focus is often on programming and theory rather than practical problem-solving.
Perhaps I should clarify a minor oversight. Those brilliant minds we’ve been nurturing for the last few years, our PhD-wielding programming prodigies, won’t be able to coast on their coding skills alone thanks to OpenAI. Their market value will hinge on the depth of their domain expertise. It’s a shame, really. Instead of grappling with complex agricultural and biological problems and improving their critical thinking, they were too busy outsourcing their brainpower to ChatGPT and Gemini. Now, their fleeting moments of brilliance are merely another data point for the AI overlords, unable to think independently.
The real irony is that talented individuals are being pushed out of their fields by clueless decision-makers who hide behind the guise of AI. It’s almost as if they think AI is a magic wand that can solve all their problems, without realizing that it requires human expertise to guide and refine.
If I recall correctly, wasn’t there some guy a few years ago (John Coleman, wasn’t it?) who thought we could just consult our local meteorologist for expert climate advice? Like, seriously, who needs scientists when you’ve got someone who can barely predict if it’s going to rain tomorrow? Do we need scientists to build bridges or design satellites? Couldn’t ChatGPT handle that? Let’s just fire them all and live in a world of perpetual sunshine and endless entertainment.
So, the big question is: Are we doomed to a future where everyone's a computer scientist, even if they're trying to grow crops or teach kids? Or do we still need to invest in training experts in their respective fields? Because let’s be honest, AI might be smart, but it’s no substitute for real-world experience.
It’s not just AI that’s the problem. The U.S. hiring model has been rotten to the core for a long time. Instead of valuing talent and innovation, corporations have always preferred to hire a disposable workforce. They’re terrified of real creativity, because it threatens their power structures. It’s like they want everyone to just follow orders and never question the status quo. And what's better than AI? A slave to your needs that never questions authority. It's a dystopian dream come true.Â
Comments