MystValkyrie comments on What do you think of AI?

[–] MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (9 children)

I don't really agree, at least for the people using agentic AI at the end-user level and not programming the models, and think the difficulty of agentic AI gets exaggerated as well. It's the same concepts on a wider scale. Multistage and automated operations in software predate AI in one way or another and people have adapted fine, to the extent where it will take a relatively small amount of professional development to catch up if needed.

Edit: Sorry, didn't mean to spam this comment! Having site issues at the moment. Will delete the redundant comments when I can.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 9 child comments

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

Woops, I think my point got lost in my pre coffee thoughts: People are going to have to learn how to build agents at the personal and team levels - being an end user won't be enough. Those that refuse to learn, will put their jobs at risk (eventually).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 8 child comments

[–] MystValkyrie@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (5 children)

Unless companies make bespoke software tools or SaaS programs for different industries that use agentic AI, which I think is likely since there are many industry-specific software tools made externally in B2B contexts, AI and predating AI. There's already paid AI tools everywhere of debateable levels of value and usefulness.

Non-programmer employees being expected to build agents may happen, but there's too much of a value proposition for external companies to forgo it. And there's also a possibility of companies bringing in contract programmers who develop those agents, or using in-house IT departments.

We're currently in a really awkward early adoption phase where end-users are being given open-ended LLM and agent tools to just play around with, and with or without a crash, I do see the industry shift toward better software integration where the end-users won't have to adopt this makeshift developer role. And then the adjustment period would be simple as AI tools start to look more like regular software that's quick to pick up with minimal risk of skills gaps or being left behind.

I could be wrong, of course, but that's basically my read on the situation.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] sunbrrnslapper@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (4 children)

Agentic AI is interesting because it has the opportunity to create competitive advantage that other companies cannot replicate. And that's the promise. Yeah, you can pay someone to build a custom agent, but it's $50k+ plus maintenance for one agent - and it just doesn't scale. It's way cheaper to train up your team who can build many agents.

Companies that delay or avoid training their teams are in for a bad surprise when a new company built around the technology enters the market. It will be one an existential problem that will result in job loss (think Amazon vs brick and mortar).

My general recommendation for workers is to get trained up on agent building - then go get a job at a company investing in their people, because those are the places most likely to survive.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] ZDL@lazysoci.al 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

Of course all this will collapse when the bills come due and people have to pay the actual cost of LLM "tokens". As users of Microsoft's Copilot found out not long ago.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments