Don’t learn to code: Nvidia’s founder Jensen Huang advises a different career path

Lol. They're at the top of the food chain. They can afford the best developers. They do not benefit from competition. As with all leading tech corporations, they are protectionist, and benefit more from stifling competition than from innovation.

Also, more broadly the oligarchy don't want the masses to understand programming because they don't want them to fundamentally understand logic, and how information systems work, because civilization is an information system. It makes more sense when you realize Linux/FOSS is the socialism of computing, and anti-competitive closed source corporations like Nvidia (notorious for hindering Linux and FOSS) are the capitalist class of computing.

I use AI to write code for work every day. Many different models and services, including https://ollama.ai on my own hardware. It's useful for a developer when they can take the code and refactor it to fit into large code-bases (after fixing its inevitable broken code here and there), but it is by no means anywhere close to actually successfully writing code all on its own. Eventually maybe, but nowhere near anytime soon.

It might not make him wrong, but he also happens to be wrong.

You can't compare AI art or literature to AI software, because the former are allowed to be vague or interpretive while the latter has to be precise and formally correct. AI can't even reliably do art yet, it frequently requires several attempts or considerable support to get something which looks right, but in software "close" frequently isn't useful at all. In fact, it can easily be close enough to look right at first glance while actually being catastopically wrong once you try to use it for real (see: every bug in any released piece of software ever)

Even when AI gets good enough to reliably produce what it's asked for first time & every time (which is a long way away for quite a while yet), a sufficiently precise description of what you want is exactly what programmers spend their lives writing. Code is a description of a program which another program (such as a compiler) can convert into instructions for the computer. If someone comes up with a very clever program which can fill in the gaps by using AI to interpret what it's been given, then what they've created is just a new kind of programming language for a new kind of compiler

Well difference is you have to know coming to know did the AI produce what you actually wanted.

Anyone can read the letter and know did the AI hallucinate or actually produce what you wanted.

On code. It might produce code, that by first try does what you ask. However turns AI hallucinated a bug into the code for some edge or specialty case.

Hallucinating is not a minor hiccup or minor bug, it is fundamental feature of LLMs. Since it isn't actually smart. It is a stochastic requrgitator. It doesn't know what you asked or understand what it is actually doing. It is matching prompt patterns to output. With enough training patterns to match one statistically usually ends up about there. However this is not quaranteed. Thus the main weakness of the system. More good training data makes it more likely it more often produces good results. However for example for business critical stuff, you aren't interested did it get it about right the 99 other times. It 100% has to get it right, this one time. Since this code goes to a production business deployment.

I guess one can code comprehensive enough verified testing pattern including all the edge cases and with thay verify the result. However now you have just shifted the job. Instead of programmer programming the programming, you have programmer programming the very very comprehensive testing routines. Which can't be LLM done, since the whole point is the testing routines are there to check for the inherent unreliability of the LLM output.

It's a nice toy for someone wanting to make a quick and dirty test code (maybe) to do thing X. Then try to find out does this actually do what I asked or does it have unforeseen behavior. Since I don't know what the behavior of the code is designed to be. Since I didn't write the code. good for toying around and maybe for quick and dirty brainstorming. Not good enough for anything critical, that has to be guaranteed to work with promise of service contract and so on.

So what the future real big job will be is not prompt engineers, but quality assurance and testing engineers who have to be around to guard against hallucinating LLM/ similar AIs. Prompts can be gotten from anyone, what is harder is finding out did the prompt actually produced what it was supposed to produce.

Until somewhere things go wrong and the supplier tries the "but an AI wrote it" as a defense when the client sues them for not delivering what was agreed upon and gets struck down, leading to very expensive compensations that spook the entire industry.