Well said. Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's.
I'm not sure how to formulate it yet but it seems there is some Peter Principle/Gell-Mann Effect corollary that is AI-related we can say here.
Perhaps: "AI rises to the level of its users' incompetence."
Or: "Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it"
>Well said. Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's.
Its like basic income, everyone will stop working except from you.
> Everyone agrees AI can't do their job, so it ends up doing everyone else's.
In real life I haven't met a single programmer who doesn't think AI can do their job.
If someone would actually say that I would immediately think they have hubris and overestimate their skills.
But using AI itself is a job too. It takes effort to correctly prompt, to steer it, to verify it, and to improve the harness.
> Confidence in AI output is inversely proportional to one's ability to verify it
I like this / generally agree. The only wrinkle is that - for some tasks - the verification _is_ "run the script, see if it worked, don't care how... just that it did" which is distinctly different from "not only did it do it correctly, it did so in the most direct and performant way possible".
For a _lot_ of what I use LLMs to build, the former is all I need.