Here is the controversial take from my perspective:
All these AI replacing coders and creatives is just a broad marketing campaign to put downward pressure on dev and creative salary.
We could've said the same thing back when Code generation was popular. Or we couod say the same thing about stackoverflow, because a non-tech person can bungle together enough solutions from there to build something. Heck NoCode(TM) was putting coders out of job in last decade and here we are in 2023.
Compared to GPT's code-fu, most image generation models are light years ahead(imagine how those models can combine best of different artists into one painting), yet I still have plenty trouble describing in excruciatingly details about the painting I want with all the prompt-engineering-sauce and the end result is usually far away from desired state unless it is just normal sticker stuff.
Explaining requirements is hard, adapting to changes is hard, we still write tests and relatively every MR needs some fixes/updates and we have a whole army of management people trying to do the prompt engineering thing and we still have to interpret in between lines to get a piece of software(even basic CRUDs that makes millions), so yeah, it is all hype driven marketing catering to enterprise about saving all those money but in the end still spend more on the token count and prompt engineering and another army of people figuring out the right keywords to describe the product and whatnot.
All this things are mostly the same, it is like claiming that we'll habe quantum computers just like next year and any Joe rando can train their own GPT or crack open the SSL layer.
Don't feed the hype cycle of these marketers with ypur fear because more you engage on this, more their boat is lifted.
Show me a real product that was built/written by GPT and is making even few hundred in monthly revenue and I will be happy to change my mind.
>All these AI replacing coders and creatives is just a broad marketing campaign to put downward pressure on dev and creative salary.
I see it as the work being replaced not actually being valuable work in the first place, at least not as valuable as some of us want them to be.
Take copywriting for example, that industry got decimated basically overnight by "AI". Why? It's because the work was actually not valuable, it was work any sufficiently complicated program could do let alone a common man. Writing catchy sales catches and blurbs? It's frankly a miracle that industry lasted as long and valued as high as it did.
Or the art scene for another example; if you as an artist or illustrator can be replaced by "AI" then your art was actually only worth a dime a dozen. I say this as a blunt objective observation, not intended as any personal attack or the like.
Or for an even more brutal example: Journalism. We literally can't tell apart man-written and "AI"-written journalism, and that's because man-written journalism has been in the absolute gutter for years if not decades now. Journalism is bad enough today that "AI"-journalists could come in and do an equal if not better job of it than man-journalists.
"AI" is, like many tools of astronomical convenience that came before it, making the act of work more accurately reflect its real value. Some workers will lose, others will win, but ultimately we will all be better off because work and the perceived value of that work aligning better is a very good thing for both producers and consumers.
I don't know what's going on, but lately on /r/programming there has been a /lot/ of negative pessimistic and downright angsty articles on software development, like there is some kind of campaign to downgrade the career of software developer.
I don’t really go on Reddit so don’t know if something is going on but I know there has been very few jobs this year compared to normal times and rates have been going down so it could be genuinely disaffected people being angry rather than a coordinated campaign.
I've stopped visiting /programming a long time ago, but just wanted to say (and I've said it before in here) that the status of the computer programmer has been on a downward trend since just before the pandemic, I'd say 2017-2018 (maybe a little earlier than that, maybe just going into the pandemic, but that's the general timeframe).
There are many reasons for that, partly the "normies" realising that most of what we, programmers, do at our day-jobs is detrimental to the society as a whole (see Facebook, see all the jobs lost to automation, see the kafkaesque world brought about by digitising almost every interaction between a human being and the State/Government), it's partly because some of us, computer programmers ourselves, have realised the same thing, it's partly because of how many computer programmers are now financially way better off compared to the normally employed people, it's partly because of the smugness that some of us, the computer programmers, brandish in many social contexts, and there are countless other similar reasons.
All these AI replacing coders and creatives is just a broad marketing campaign to put downward pressure on dev and creative salary.
We could've said the same thing back when Code generation was popular. Or we couod say the same thing about stackoverflow, because a non-tech person can bungle together enough solutions from there to build something. Heck NoCode(TM) was putting coders out of job in last decade and here we are in 2023.
Compared to GPT's code-fu, most image generation models are light years ahead(imagine how those models can combine best of different artists into one painting), yet I still have plenty trouble describing in excruciatingly details about the painting I want with all the prompt-engineering-sauce and the end result is usually far away from desired state unless it is just normal sticker stuff.
Explaining requirements is hard, adapting to changes is hard, we still write tests and relatively every MR needs some fixes/updates and we have a whole army of management people trying to do the prompt engineering thing and we still have to interpret in between lines to get a piece of software(even basic CRUDs that makes millions), so yeah, it is all hype driven marketing catering to enterprise about saving all those money but in the end still spend more on the token count and prompt engineering and another army of people figuring out the right keywords to describe the product and whatnot.
All this things are mostly the same, it is like claiming that we'll habe quantum computers just like next year and any Joe rando can train their own GPT or crack open the SSL layer.
Don't feed the hype cycle of these marketers with ypur fear because more you engage on this, more their boat is lifted.
Show me a real product that was built/written by GPT and is making even few hundred in monthly revenue and I will be happy to change my mind.