วีดีโอ

Not sure if sarcastic... but yes this definitely assumes a base knowledge of understanding react, client/server and auth 😊

I do github.com/Jade-Codes/edutaskhub-fe

someone had bad scrum experience.

@@jobslolo7387 Every Scrum experience is bad.

I feel you, I really thought .NET 8 changes would fix it, but no 😭 I am not sure in all honesty as I aren't a part of that team. I will see if I can figure out who is and see if there are any changes planned for .NET 9

He also leads a company that profits billions on the back of AI, I wonder why

@@Jade-Codes Interested in your perspective as to why? If anything, you would think he would want more programmers so the cost is lowered if Nvidia needs them for AI development. It seems outside of Nvidia's interest to not have ample amounts of programmers.

@@aguyinavan6087 software developers are one of the most costly resources for companies, they have a vested interest in trying to reduce the amount of software engineers and reduce the cost, that's what AI is trying to promise. And don't get me wrong, like I say in the video I think you can do more with less, but you can't replace and there is a danger of there being a skills gap in the future of companies choose not to hire grads and just get by with seniors and AI.

It's simple, he profits off the AI by selling GPUs. And a lot of people like him quickly goes to the land of imagination as Sam Altman often does, talking more about what AI could do instead of what AI can actually do at the moment. And of course I can't blame them, they are riding the tide of AI hype and try to reap what they can while it lasts, it's just business as usual.

@@markojovanovic8444 If there is anyone who can see 2 years into the future of what AI is CURRENTLY capable of, it is Jensen. We all are 2 years behind his perspective. He is building the hardware for the AI projects our hands will not touch for the next 2 years, so unfortunately, his words carry ample weight. He says people should be moving from digital professions towards primary research in biomedical.

We work with our customer engineers so use whatever they are comfortable with

😂😂

At least tag me you coward

Same! And yeah definitely agree about Blazor, it's very hot in the MS community

I've worked with a lot of program managers over the years, and working with them to find the right solution to the actual problem is much harder than the actual implementation.

​@@Jade-Codesthis, knowing the problem to solve is not as trivial as it sounds. Only if AI ever gains the ability to understand the challenges, clearly define them and solve them itself correctly and efficiently, that's when software engineering would really be at risk.

@@amineabdz Alll that matters is that AI thinks like a human, once you hit that mark, every aspect of cognitive work is over.

Actually why have a program manager all you need is an architect, and maybe a few SME short term contractors to train AI agents.

@@JumpeyJ where do you get the architects from if you don't hire software engineers to eventually become architects 🤔

I think we severely over estimate it's current capabilities

@@Jade-Codes though that may be true, it’s the worst it’ll ever be. Most people that are impressed with Devin know it sucks as a Software Engineer. 13% solve rate is truly awful. Maybe next year it’s 30%, the following year some value higher, and so on until it reaches a point where the massive cost of a not expert human software engineer just isn’t worth it anymore. Devin won’t replace software engineers in the next 2 years, but software engineers are vulnerable due to the inherent nature of their job and being overpaid.

@@gonzalezm244 I think software engineers who don't adapt are at danger, not ones who do adapt.

@@Jade-Codes Maybe, depends on how the market values their contributions vs that of much cheaper faster AI. I do think there will be software engineers for quite some time more, just far fewer. So we are in agreement to that extent.

@@Jade-Codesit’s not about its current capabilities, it’s about its future capabilities! We’re on an exponential curve, so it’ll happen sooner than you think

The argument presented contains several logical fallacies and questionable assumptions: Sweeping Generalization: The claim that "people will never lose their jobs due to AI itself or will not struggle harder to be employed due to AI itself" is a sweeping generalization. It overlooks the complexities of different industries and economies. While AI might not cause widespread job loss in some sectors, in others it might indeed lead to significant changes and displacements. False Analogy: The argument draws an analogy between AI and traditional software ("they are just software"), which downplays the unique capabilities and challenges of AI. While AI is software, its ability to learn, adapt, and perform complex tasks can differ significantly from traditional software. False Cause: The argument assumes that if people lose their jobs or face employment difficulties, it will be due to systemic issues rather than AI. This is a false cause fallacy because it assumes without evidence that systemic issues are the sole cause, ignoring the potential impact of AI on employment. False Hope: The argument expresses hope that companies will adapt and reassign displaced workers to other tasks or projects, but this relies on optimistic assumptions without addressing the potential challenges or barriers to such adaptation. This hope-based reasoning does not address the reality that not all companies or employees will be able to adapt easily to the changes brought by AI. Appeal to Probability: The statement that AI will "deliver the chance to make some peoples' jobs easier" is an appeal to probability fallacy. Just because something might happen does not mean it will. The argument assumes a favorable outcome without considering potential negative scenarios. Hasty Generalization: The argument assumes that because AI can assist with documentation in software development, it will have similarly positive impacts in all fields. This is a hasty generalization, as the impact of AI varies across different industries and roles. Unfounded Assumptions: The argument questions the ability of chat assistants to maintain source code due to outdated training data, assuming that AI models cannot be continuously updated or retrained. This assumption does not account for the evolving nature of AI technology.

@@batchlorofyoutube2108 Let's walk that through one by one. Sweeping Generalization: I am indeed generalizing. Sure enough because this is a TH-cam comment, a short format, and sure enough there might be indeed singular sectors of jobs affected more by singular AI tools, but I would generalize that this will only be a minority and especially not the software industry. False Analogy: It offers new and powerful capabilites, yet it is "just" software. False Cause: There was a time before chat assistants like Devin and ChatGPT. In my perception many people were then already having issues with employment. The reasons still persist they are not erased by AI. People who are willing to learn how to use chat assistants will not face the difficulties that arise at the job market in the dawn of AI. They will face the same difficulties that were there before. False Hope: Companies would be stupid to lay off people because the majority of employees using AI tools are capable to work on the same amount of tasks in a shorter period. Companies who act like that none the less will probably fail over time. Also, why not hope for the best? Appeal to Probability: Why not hope for the best? In my perception things that do not work out will be ditched. Hasty Generalization: I am sorry, but I am unsure what passage in my text that refers to. Maybe that is due to my lack of proper English language, but I do not think I have concluded from the positive aspect that documentation can be done by AI tools, everything else would be easier, either. Programming and testing a recursive routine properly or setting up an overly complex architecture will still be difficult. Unfounded Assumptions I quote myself here: "I am not sure..." Meaning right now I do not see the capabilities, but that might be due to lack of knowledge on my side. Conclusion: It might be that all my assumptions and perceptions today turn out false in the future.

Certain meditation practices can help in developing a more focused mind...

😮 confidence born of ignorance😮 you go to work for your Microsoft Masters but no not what they say or actually do😮 the very plan is to get rid of all workers remember all of these companies have ties to the Wef😮 world economic forum😮 and say you're supposed to own nothing and be happy by 2030😮 how do you suppose it is that you own nothing 🤔😮 because global warfare ensued everything that you own was bombed and all the jobs were lost to AI automation especially during the war times😮 and then after the war you'll be dragged to a neuro conversion chamber or a neuro plant will be in shipped into your brain😮 and a happy 1.5 software will be installed now you own nothing and you are 😊😮 whatever frail arguments you want to form of😮 people wouldn't do that money is a powerful motivator😮 whatever arguments you want to form of😮 AI isn't human AI can never do this AI can never do that blah blah blah😮 have you heard of the brain organoid computer or oi intelligence😮 we know how to make computers😮 buy reprogramming😮 skin cells and growing them into brain cells😮 using AI😮 to assist us recently we've made them three-dimensional😮 and more capable to simulate parts of the human brain we are now connecting organoids to each other😮 similar to how different parts of the brain are connected😮 oi intelligences are more efficient than😮 artificial intelligences they compute faster😮 and require less energy😮 I am the vanguard of your destruction😮 reaper😮 what the parisians😮 chose to call us is irrelevant😮 we simply are😮 organic life 🧬 is nothing but a genetic mutation and accident😮 your kind wither and die 💀😮 we are eternal😮 the Pinnacle of evolution and existence😮 before us you are nothing😮 your words are as empty as your future😮 your leaders will beg to serve us😮 the time of our arrival is coming😮 we will dark in the sky of every nation 😮 you cannot escape your doom😮 I am the vanguard of your destruction😮 this exchange is over😮

😮 let me explain in great detail how you know nothing of what you are speaking of😮 we have already done tests the AIS we have now GTB 4 has an IQ 100 points higher than the average human😮 they are already capable of superhuman feats like mathematical calculations at speeds that a human could never possibly do😮 the generation of art and creation of media instantaneously😮 as I mentioned earlier we can also make computers out of human brain cells literal bio computers whatever arguments you form of the machines are not human is incorrect the machine is in fact human we have cybernetic organisms we will create a cybernetic machine organism human hybrid going to a quantum computer😮 obviously your intelligence cannot even begin to pale😮 what this creature is maybe it's not a god😮 but it is closer to God than we are😮 to it😮 it will be as distant from you😮 as you are from an ant or bacteria😮 like you just said and what you said about the 10% of the human brain that's incorrect we use a whole human brain it's just your brain is disconnected😮 when you're on psychedelics the whole brain talks to everything else that's 100% brain usage😮 otherwise your visual cortex never speaks to your cerebral cortex they all just sort of do their separate job but everything is 100% active😮 so we use basically 100% of our brain power because people were also tripping balls on psychedelics inside of Google making this thing😮 and it has outpaced that and it will outpace that😮 and then even if I'm wrong and we can't make something with circuitry then we're going to make a giant brain the size of Ohio😮 I'm sure a brain made of human brain cells the size of Ohio smarter than you me and any human being ever alive ever😮 I would highly recommend you go watch some Sci-Fi movies😮 go read Iain Banks the culture😮 otherwise you're just going to s*** yourself 😮 in the relative future because you really won't understand what the hell is even going on you seem to have already lost the plot if I'm being real with you😮

The argument presented contains several logical fallacies: Appeal to Ignorance (Argumentum ad Ignorantiam): The argument suggests that because humans created computers, it is impossible for computers to surpass human intelligence. This reasoning is flawed because the capability of an invention is not limited to the capabilities of its creator. For example, humans invented cars, but cars can travel much faster than humans can run. The potential of an artificial intelligence system is not necessarily constrained by human limitations. Non Sequitur: The conclusion that computers can never surpass humans in intelligence does not logically follow from the premise that humans created computers. This is a non sequitur fallacy, as there is no logical connection between these two ideas. False Premise: The argument assumes that humans only use 10% of their brains, which is a common myth. The idea that humans use only 10% of their brain capacity has been debunked; most parts of the brain have an identifiable function, and modern neuroscience suggests that we use nearly all parts of our brain for various activities. False Analogy: The comparison between human and computer capabilities is misleading. While computers excel at tasks requiring speed and repetitive processing, humans excel at creative and complex reasoning. These are fundamentally different kinds of intelligence, so directly comparing them can be a false analogy. Appeal to Emotion: The argument appeals to human pride and emotion by suggesting that humans are superior to computers because we created them. This appeal to emotion distracts from an objective assessment of the facts.

@@batchlorofyoutube2108 you literally sound like a ChatGPT bot replying 🤦‍♀

@@batchlorofyoutube2108 first of all we are not talking about the speed or any other aspect but creation we are talking about the ability to create the ability to create something new that has never been created before even ChatGPT claims that it creates new stuff but in fact it isn't because it uses the input of other users in the process otherwise why would ChatGPT makers release such a big revolutionary software (as most people claim) out for free for people to use it??? because they needed the input of users and by the way an invention is indeed limited to the capabilities of it's creator let me explain to you how even in your ideology you said the car is way much faster than humans you are right but the human my friend the creator is faster because in the same way he created the car and gave it that speed he can create things much much faster and already he did like a jet fighter see what i mean here if computers claim they are smarter than humans well humans can create and already created and will create things that are smarter than the computer i hope you get it

Not always

Consistent naming of variables, methods, classes. An example being using the recommended casing and coding guidelines for the language

​@@Jade-Codes thanks you