• SkyeStarfall@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      3·
      1 hour ago

      As someone within this field, yup, lmfao

      Me and all of my friends within compsci are all “yeah but I love my job” and they all talk about their co-workers who seem to hate programing and problem solving

      And unfortunately it’s really starting to seem like I have to start using LLMs as part of my job to keep up, and it’s so sad

    • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      38·
      9 hours ago

      Really shows the difference between the “I like problem solving” crowd and the “I like shiny tech and everyone said this would make money” crowd.

      • aksdb@lemmy.world
        1·
        2 minutes ago

        But the shiny tech makes problem solving so much easier … for me. I can now much more easily solve problems on a wider scale. Many problems I solve are sprinkled with side tasks that don’t have directly to do with the problem but are in my way to get to the solution. Those things have cost me a big amount of time in the past and just bothered me (because I needed to deep dive into something that wasn’t what I wanted to work at). Now an agent deals with these pesky things much faster and I just have to clean up, while keeping my focus on the actual thing I wanted to solve.

        • Wirlocke@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          51·
          7 hours ago

          I’d say I actually fall in that camp. Right now I’m trying to set up an open source AI assistant that’s like, a little dumb but can still help me while I’m coding.

          My ideal relationship with AI is this image:

    • brsrklf@jlai.lu
      211·
      11 hours ago

      Yeah. Every now and then there’s a misguided artist spewing shit like “engineers” or “programmers” are all out to get them because they love AI so much.

      Fuck that, I do love my job, I hate both AI “art” and “code”, and I know plenty others.

    • rbb36@lemmy.world
      13·
      9 hours ago

      Try Thomas Piketty, or Emmanuel Saez. Or if you want someone older, try Jean Jaurès. Just because rich people love sociopath economists doesn’t mean there aren’t good ones out there.

      [edit: adding a snippet]:

      Together with economists Thomas Piketty and Gabriel Zucman, Saez’s work claims top earners in the United States have taken an increasingly larger share of overall income over the last three decades, with almost as much economic inequality as before the Great Depression. Saez recommends much higher marginal tax rates, of up to 70% or 90%. Among other honors, he received the John Bates Clark Medal in 2009 and a MacArthur “Genius” Fellowship in 2010.

      • Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        51·
        9 hours ago

        I’d be happy with calling them economic anthropologists, haha. As far as I’m concerned (and I’m sure it’s more complex than this) the ones interested in people are anthropologists and spreadsheet humpers are economists. But I respect them swimming upstream in their field, being surrounded by economy bros has to suck so hard.

  • artifex@piefed.zipEnglish
    171·
    13 hours ago

    Economists about to find out that everything they thought they knew is wrong.

    • themoken@startrek.website
      342·
      12 hours ago

      Economics is soft science pretending like it is describing fundamental laws of the universe.

      Economists don’t know shit, they are describing how the economy could work in certain conditions in a vacuum and sometimes politicians/business people buy into the fantasy to backup doing whatever they wanted to do in the first place.

      Oh shit, it’s religion again.

      • WesternInfidels@feddit.onlineEnglish
        12·
        10 hours ago

        It could be (I’m not saying I know this to be true) that the version of “economics” that makes it onto the TV news is the one that capital finds the most useful, not the version that’s the most scholarly or serious. Or interesting.

        • themoken@startrek.website
          8·
          10 hours ago

          There is an element of this, because the people using it for policy or writing headlines always disregard a ton of caveats and qualifications in any field (including actual hard science like physics), but most economics texts I’ve read hide a ton of complexity behind “rationality” that doesn’t exist and are implicitly describing the system that we have (capitalism) without acknowledging that we could do it any other way - which frees them from any ethical conflict with capital/exploitation and lets them pretend they are describing a natural system.

          The truth is we are irrational both as individuals and as groups with outside influences, and the economy can function in whatever way we want it to function. In that lens economics quickly turns into psychology, ethics and philosophy. Which, to be clear, would be a useful thing to study in any economic system (all of which have incentives and pitfalls), but it is not nearly as objective or concrete as it currently pretends as it fiddles with interest rates while billionaires run roughshod over our entire society.

        • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
          5·
          10 hours ago

          There’s a famous quote about economics that goes something along the lines of “the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent,” which I think summarizes everything pretty nicely. Humans are chaotic and largely unpredictable creatures, and economics is a science devoted to trying to pull deterministic data out of inherently nondeterministic people. Sometimes they’re even pretty on point about it. But in all cases it is, best case, an educated guess.

          • MinnesotaGoddam@lemmy.worldEnglish
            3·
            6 hours ago

            yeah, i like to shit on macroeconomists because their best model (that is quantifiable) is only like 60% accurate. there’s not a lot of predictive power in it, but the various models they use are accurate enough to illustrate general ideas.

            i also like to shit on microeconomists because they study auctions and that’s about it. also there was that month we all (like, every economist) studied bananas. i swear the entire damn field has ADHD.

            then there’s the austrian school, who are afraid of maths.

            i guess my point is that the field of economics is wide enough to fit at least three asses

      • Thrydwulf@lemmy.todayEnglish
        4·
        8 hours ago

        To play devil’s advocate, sometimes the economists’ “math” forecasts bad news; in which case politicians/business people will plug their ears like with anyone else. It certainly doesn’t help that economists can’t forecast when things go pop.

        To imply anything other than “line-go-up” would imply a bad job on the part of a politician/business person. Which of course, would be ludicrous. 🙃