It's always played out like this in software, by the way. Famously, animation shops hoped to save money on production by switching over to computer rendered cartoons. What happened instead is that a whole new industry took shape, and brought along with it entire cottage industries of support workers. Server farms required IT, renders required more advanced chips, some kinds of animation required entirely new rendering techniques in the software, etc.
A few hundred animators turned into a few thousand computer animators & their new support crew, in most shops. And new, smaller shops took form! But the shops didn't go away, at least not the ones who changed.
It basically boils down to this: some shops will act with haste and purge their experts in order to replace them with LLMs, and others will adopt the LLMs, bring on the new support staff they need, and find a way to synthesize a new process that involves experts and LLMs.
Shops who've abandoned their experts will immediately begin to stagnate and produce more and more mediocre slop (we're seeing it already!) and the shops who metamorphose into the new model you're speculating at will, meanwhile, create a whole new era of process and production. Right now, you really want to be in that second camp - the synthesizers. Eventually the incumbents will have no choice but to buy up those new players in order to coup their process.
And 3D animation still requires hand animation! Nobody starts with 3D animation, the senior animators are doing storyboards and keyframes which they _then_ use as a guide for 3D animation.
Oh my, no. Fabrics and things made from fabrics remain largely produced by human workers.
Those textile workers were afraid machines would replace them, but that didn't happen - the work was sent overseas, to countries with cheaper labor. It was completely tucked away from regulation and domestic scrutiny, and so remains to this day a hotbed of human rights abuses.
The phenomenon you're describing wasn't an industry vanishing due to automation. You're describing a moment where a domestic industry vanished because the cost of overhauling the machinery in domestic production facilities was near to the cost of establishing an entirely new production facility in a cheaper, more easily exploitable location.
I think you're talking about people who sew garments, not people who create textile fabrics. In any case, the 19th century British textile workers we all know I'm talking about really did lose their jobs, and those jobs did not return.
I agree it's a problem but it isn't incumbent on the 'x' peers to solve it. The burden of that goes to any supposed '10x'.
Long version:
I agree with you, though I would add that a superintellect at '10x' that couldn't look at the 'x' baseline of those around it and navigate that in an effective way (in other words, couldn't organize its thoughts and present them in a safe or good seeming way), is just plain not going to ever function at a '10x' level sustainably in an ecosystem full of normal 'x' peers.
I think the whole point of Stranger in a Strange Land is about this. The Martian is (generally) not only completely ascendant, he's also incredibly effective at leveraging his ascendancy. Repeatedly, characters who find him abhorrent at a distance chill out as they begin to grok him.
The reality is that this is an ecosystem of normal 'x' peers and the '10x', as the abnormality, needs to have "functional and effective in an ecosystem of 'x' peers" as part of its core skill set, or else none of us (not even the '10x' itself) can never recognize or utilize its supposed '10x' capacity.
That's what I meant, once you apply what happens in practice to the theory. It's a response to a comment about ego and cults so I tried to be as political as I can... which just isn't sufficient. My entire premise is that this subject is something familiar and controversial in a new guise so there is going to be a lot of knee-jerk reactions as soon as you bring up something that looks like a pain-point.
For reference, I think most of us are '10x' in a particular field and that is our talent. Society-in-scarcity rewards talents unequally so we get status and ego resulting in a host of dark patterns. I think AI can ease scarcity so I keep betting on this horse for solving the real problem, which is ego.
I think maybe you ought to think about inverting your stance on this, because it's not necessarily virtuous to imagine that everyone repeating the same warning, over and over again, is due to some mysterious, inexplicable negativity. And it's not great to imagine that they don't know what they're talking about, or that they're just trying to scare people off with senseless FUD. Or that they didn't actually run into the problems they say they did. Or that they don't know the root cause.
Maybe a better question to be curious about is this: What can Elm do about the (self-evident in these comments, IMO) fact that a bunch of devs who really like it, feel like it's a bad choice? And, what SHOULD Elm do about that?
If a bunch of people think it's a tool foreboding enough to warn others off of it, and in the same thread some of those same people are saying they really liked that tool and wish they didn't have to do that, what benefit are you really getting from just dismissing their feedback?
Outspoken feedback is rare, just calling it negativity and paying it no mind rhymes a lot with the way Elm, writ large, has behaved. It's not indicative of a tool or ecosystem that wants to foster growth or continue development. That's part of the problem.
I disagree. I don't care what elm maintainers should or shouldn't do. It's not my problem, so that's not a question I want to ask.
I'm curious about why the same few, a vocal minority, spams every thread about elm with the same blog post. If you think we're dismissive, it's more because we don't want the discussion to be derailed for the umpteenth time.
People who make commercial decisions based on the support and development a language receives do indeed care. If you are making decisions with commercial or practical relevance you should care and not caring is negligence if you decide to use the product. Many people got burnt by the abandonment of Elm development (and yes, it has essentially been abandoned despite what the Elm community will say).
I think it's a bit disingenuous to pretend the goal of many of these critics is to improve Elm. They are clearly through with the language--as shown in their comments--and that is fine. But they're acting like they got dumped five years ago and still aren't over it.
I like to think of it as `view, effects = fn(state, events)`, where effects are any subsequent events or instructions that come out of a state change. I think of it very close to how you're outlining it here, though, and when I'm thinking of effects I'm generally also thinking of it as a set of things that can fit into an event stream like you're outlining.
In this case, "community is moving in that direction" means that over the last 3+ years, a significant amount of middleware and tooling has grown in the Tower ecosystem, which Axum is based on. So the network effect is the draw here, not a hype cycle.
That doesn't seem like a mitigation to what the poster above you said, to me. It just means that if I don't like it, I don't lose my posts when I move. That's nice but it offers no guarantees in the face of a corporate actor harming the overall federation of a network.
You and others in this thread aren't grokking what this means in practice: it means that users are transparently redirected to your new home wherever you are. If a corporate juggernaut tries to harm the network, folks just pick up and move their identity. The protocol bakes in treating the provider like a dumb pipe. The protocol puts the power in the hands of the users and at any time they can just up and walk away, defeating the stickiness of the provider.
No, I definitely get that. Where your data is, or is not, has no relevance to a network member choosing to behave badly or harmfully against that network. Nor does it actually impact what they can do to the network itself. It simply provides you with durability concerning your identity.
I wired things up using a Flux-like architecture, where the Store would periodically signal a data change and the component would render it, transitions and all. It all worked out pretty much as I expected.
A few hundred animators turned into a few thousand computer animators & their new support crew, in most shops. And new, smaller shops took form! But the shops didn't go away, at least not the ones who changed.
It basically boils down to this: some shops will act with haste and purge their experts in order to replace them with LLMs, and others will adopt the LLMs, bring on the new support staff they need, and find a way to synthesize a new process that involves experts and LLMs.
Shops who've abandoned their experts will immediately begin to stagnate and produce more and more mediocre slop (we're seeing it already!) and the shops who metamorphose into the new model you're speculating at will, meanwhile, create a whole new era of process and production. Right now, you really want to be in that second camp - the synthesizers. Eventually the incumbents will have no choice but to buy up those new players in order to coup their process.