Depends. Countries which are leading tech development will be able to just increase demand for developers and produce more? At least initially. Countries which are not too tech based and their developers are mostly doing the same old same old (web development and, idk, basic business systems like for retail stores) will probably just have fewer people doing the job that would take more people otherwise.

Eventually even tech-heavy countries will only need developers doing state of the art research and development, like working on AI itself. And we know not everyone who is able to code is capable of doing that kind of job.

It will allow programmers to produce more, that could lead to needing less programmers to get the job done. But it's simply incapable of dispensing with the need for programmers. The industry will eventually largely migrate more to low/no code platforms, that will impact programmers more than advancing AI in the near term.

> so this discussion won't be flagged as wildly speculative / low effort and removed.

You don't ever have to worry about that.

>Thereby increasing the rate of acceleration toward a transformative AI and singularity?

Yes, if your definition of the singularity is more aligned with the broad technological and economic progress of human civilization, and less with specifically the creation of an artificial superintelligence.

So, you think it will increase the demand for developers initially? At the same pay scale and for how long? A decade? 2 years?

Web devs seem like they're always in demand, and I agree not every programmer will be able to transition to state of the art environments. I can't imagine large non-tech companies having a large demand for several programmers when their mode of operation usually consists of having too few for the job as it is already. I imagine those companies would likely have much fewer human programmers working with something like Codex to get as much done as possible while being understaffed.

I also think a text to code AI will severely reduce the skill needed for a programmer to begin with (outside of state of the art stuff). Thus reducing wages, and demand.

I'm trying to imagine how this won't gravely effect employment in the field, especially as the AI gets better and better at writing code.

No I didn't mean expand demand for developers, I mean expand production per developer. This means instead of 50 people working on the same project we can have 25 people working on two projects, thus producing more instead of having 25 unemployed people. That's what I meant.

>You don't ever have to worry about that.

Every single post I've ever submitted here has had that happen. Talked to the mods and they said my threads are too low effort/speculative. But anyway.

​

>But it's simply incapable of dispensing with the need for programmers

What do you mean by this? Incapable how?

But yes, if they migrate to low/no code platforms that's exactly what I'm getting at. The skill level will plummet and there will be a huge pool of people capable of entering text to code. The higher engineers will likely remain highly paid, but their positions will be extremely competitive.

I see. I wonder to what degree that system will work. If that's the case, why wouldn't a company today hire 100 instead of 50 if it doubles the output?

See, that's exactly why I am not speaking per company, I am speaking per country. Most companies won't have the need to develop more projects just because they can. Countries that are leading tech development can absorb these people into other companies and new startups for a while. But there is a limit to expansion so that's why even leading countries will eventually not be able to expand that much.

This is just slack resources for any end anywhere. Just like in The Theory of the Growth of The Firm (Penrose). Slack resources is a necessary condition to expand but not sufficient. Countries that lead tech usually mention a need for more skilled workers, and that is reflected by market logic on the high wages and social status of tech workers (reflected in other countries because skilled workers can leave for other countries but mostly because multinationals from tech-heavy countries set the expected wages also when they arrive in other countries). Taking this to literally mean there is room for expansion constrained by availability of workers seems to not be a bad guess.

So yes, not at the company level but at the country level in some countries there is room for expansion. And yes this will result in lower wages as room for expansion diminishes.

I suppose that just leaves the burning question we can't answer, which is how long?

I just don't understand how the swathes of lower skilled programming positions won't be obliterated. My argument (if you want to call it that I guess) is not that higher skilled workers will feel the full effect of this, but the lower skilled ones simply won't be able to be reused elsewhere when their job only takes basic prompts. They certainly won't be moving to other countries for work and demand decent pay.

Programmers of all levels are considered skilled works, until an AI reduces the skill needed to basic text prompting. Is it worth it to start a 4 year university course today with the hopes of getting into web development? Today that's considered a skilled position, 4 years from now it might be as trivial as a call center position.

I really can't answer anything regarding the speed of transformation atm, I just thought about your question for a minute or two. But speaking in general form for when we get there, as we approach trivialization of intellectual tasks (and I say trivialization to be on the same page as you, not to be confused with full automation) there are common points of view about the future:

1. That's a non-issue: the argument of most people who hold a bachelor of Economics degree (and never studied economics past undergrad level).

The argument suggests that every technological revolution which makes older jobs disappear tend to also make new jobs never before considered to pop into existence. Not every tech leap does this but some tech leaps are so profound that they make up for a lot more new jobs than they took away.

In this argument developers need not fear, maybe they won't be doing the same things they are doing today but they will have financial stability pursuing other jobs. As you can see, the first flaw of this argument jumps in front of you when it disregards people who are caught in the transition period, and only cares about people who get an education and a job after the transition is done.

2. Universal Basic Income: self explanatory, this will tell you you don't have to worry about being unemployable, you will get something from the government until you figure something else out.

This connects with the last problem with the first argument and both are the same argument in the heads of some people. In the heads of others, maybe really a good amount of people won't be able to transition and we may end up having to support a good chunck of people just on UBI alone for the long term.

As you can see UBI also doesn't answer your question about getting a degree today, but it would make it less frightening to be wrong.

3. The Keynesian argument: Automation will inevitably outpace the rate of new job creation in general areas of the economy. The solution: everyone works less time and still get livable wages, so that more people can work.

In this argument your developers would be working half time so that more people can be employed. (Not going into details but your average company shareholder and C-suite would probably not like this for more reasons than just smaller profit margins).

4. Steady-state economics: similar to the argument above but we couple that with stopping continuous production expansion (in the aggregate economy). As you work less hours, more people can work. Everyone works less but nobody is allowed to be filthy-rich (where is the limit? Good question). If there is capital concentration then expansion would be needed again.

5. Degrowth: similar to the above but we kill specific industries (think private jets, yachts, fast food, fast fashion, probably a lot of tech too).

Why kill "superficial" industries? To avoid hyper Inflation in the prices of fundamental products and services, such as foods sold at the supermarket, durable clothing (non-luxury), housing construction, etc, etc. Because reducing the amount of worked hours but not reducing wages (or reducing less than 1:1 ratio) may inflate all prices, so we kill superficial industries in order to allocate resources and people in more essential work, controlling Inflation via supply (see the last nobel prize in economics iirc).

In this scenario your average developer who works for tech giant cartels will not have that kind of work ever again. More modest wages in smaller companies and less working hours. But also constrained by some limit in wealth accumulation.

I was about to mention the socialist arguments but I don't feel like getting into the shit show that may follow in the comments. But market socialism may be an answer (Steady-State Economics except all companies are cooperatives [except for monopolies, which are owned by the government]). Why cooperatives? Because there is a conflict of interest in having people work less hours when companies are private: managers and shareholders have all the incentive in the world to raise the amount of working hours if they are allowed to.

7. Business as usual: The actual path we are heading. This is the path where we believe argument one is right and if it isn't we just allow huge portions of the population to fall into unemployment until revolts begin and we enter a fascist state. But to be clear, not only do we believe argument one is right, we also believe that the transition stage for people who are right now getting an education and/or working in jobs soon to be trivialized will be smooth asf. New jobs will pop up and most professionals will be able to transition smoothly without a care in the world.

>entering text to code

If you're getting raw code from Codex or anything like it, you will need a programmer to deal with it. It's too low level and lacks the domain knowledge to code a usable system, and from text prompts from someone who doesn't know how to code. The programmer decides what functions are needed to satisfy a working system. How to integrate code from Codex into the system, etc.

I've been developing bespoke automation solutions for businesses my adult life, it's still hard work and thus expensive. My cheapest programmer makes $137k/yr, I would replace them all in a heartbeat. Nothing short of AGI will allow me to replace them, Codex et al. will improve productivity at most.

> Low/No-code is a software development approach that requires little to no coding to build applications and processes. Instead of using complex programming languages, you can employ visual interfaces with basic logic and drag-and-drop capabilities in a low code development platform.

Beg. of the end? Maybe. Whole sale replacement as of current date? No. So basically I agree with you.

I think we have a few programmers in the sub, I hope they give their opinion.

Appreciate the comment, it's well thought out.

The first point is often brought up in regards to the singularity, though I personally think it's the least likely outcome. Comparing the upcoming revolution when transformative AI starts knocking out employment sector after sector to the industrial revolution? Just doesn't compute in my mind. There's a big difference between machines being operated, and machines operating themselves. Not only operating themselves, but doing it better than humans in every measurable way.

But the real point that matters here is the last point. As it seems we are just sitting and waiting for the first disruption to bring things to a screeching halt. I know text to image gave us a taste of what that can be, but graphic designs (no offence to them) are not essential to today's economy. They are a subset within a non-essential sector (creative arts, more or less).

Programmers however, may be the first realistic sector to see upheaval from AI. I imagine though that it's probably also the most important to be first because it might be the largest domino to move the transition from number 7 to "the one that isn't numbered" in your list.

Do you envision the "text to anything" AI we see cropping up as incapable as it is now? I have to assume the next iteration of GPT or whatever will be markedly improved. I think that comes down to the question of how long will it be until someone can enter text like "make a program that does so and so" and it does it. Give another prompt to edit any undesirable results, and then you finish.

I know this is a total oversimplification of programming, but I certainly don't think it requires full AGI to do that sort of thing. I don't know how large your team is, but well before AGI could probably replace most of them if Codex evolves at a rate anything like other AI that uses this approach.

But the real question I'm asking isn't really about the skilled members of your team over the next 5 to 10 years. I'm asking about right now, are the prospects of beginning a career or schooling to learn programming assumed to be fruitful? There's no denying programmers are skilled workers now, but will this tech open the flood gate for anyone with the ability to do basic text prompts? That would effectively reduce the amount of skilled programmers by a great percentage, making the skilled positions much more competitive and the unskilled ones much lower pay.

At the risk of sounding disparaging, I've found so far over the timeline of the past year or so, most people with a "threatened" industry over estimate their skills to be unreplaceable by AI, and rather it's an effective tool to increase output. It wasn't until text to image suddenly gave anyone that can type a prompt the ability to make beautiful art that graphic designers started to feel the looming storm.

Personally after consideration, I think the most genius sector to disrupt would be programming. Not because it's the easiest (programming has a lot more involved than just typing code), and not so AI can just write its own code and self improve (probably a ways out from that). But The reason I think it's the best to go first is because it would have the greatest effect across all industries. We don't want to sit around wondering when our jobs are all going to disappear, we would want it to happen to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. Programmers are the foundation to basically any business that has any aspect of tech involved. It'd be the biggest blow, which is a good thing in the long run.

But I don't know. I really do wonder if it's a career worth starting soon. It feels like wack-a-mole for anyone trying to plan a career now because any sector could be disrupted in a month.

I envisioned AI being able to reproduce reality in bits and bytes with perfect verisimilitude. These first flawed attempts don't really move the needle in the real world. It's easy to think the gap is close since it went from 0 to something in a decade, but the last 0.099% is a mile away. That last tiny bit is probably the hardest and keeps current AI from being broadly economically useful.

I would still recommend programming to a high school grad interested in the field. Even if the future pans out, programming skills would still be a great jumping off point to many related areas.

Btw, my time horizon for AGI that's capable of doing most economically valuable tasks is 2030.

>Btw, my time horizon for AGI that's capable of doing most economically valuable tasks is 2030.

We're in the same boat. Realistically, my question could be applied to basically any sector. Just a matter of when. But yes, of course if it's 2030 before a possible disruption of full automation it doesn't matter what career someone chooses.

But it's impossible to think that far ahead, and the fact programming could very likely be the main subject in the crosshairs for various reasons (it's the end goal for AI?), I'm apprehensive about further studying. I'm not in high school, it's more of a second career situation and time is of the essence to me, as in I don't want to gamble on the wrong horse.

If AGI hits in 2030, I expect it will take decades for the effects to spread through society.

I think the era of majoring in CS to get a fancy dev job in the valley is probably coming to an end. I think in the near future, CS will only be for people deeply interested in hardcore CS topics like algos, OS, comp theory, comp architecture, AI/ML, etc. Basically it will go back to what it was like in the 70s. Just real nerd shit like Electrical Eng or Physics. Basically, I think the "just learn to code" bubble is going to pop.

Coding itself will be looked at like blue-collar grunt work. Similar to what a typist was back in the early 1900s. Nowadays we don't have typists, because it's just a basic skill that everyone uses in their actual job which is far bigger in scope. So you can imagine that software engineering in the future will be bigger in scope, perhaps an amalgamation of data engineering, ML engineering, and data science. Maybe even higher functions too like product/design. The scope of a software engineer will increase as other lower order functions of the job get automated.

Anyone who's trying to get a freelance job as a web dev, or is doing 3 month bootcamps or whatever, or they're thinking of doing a quick mid-career switch into tech for the money, I think those kinds of people are fucked. They don't even realize how outdated their skills are going to be. I think actual software engineering will concentrate more and more towards well educated people with great fundamentals in AI/ML/data science and other quant/engineering related stuff.

No, the work flow and job descriptions will change. The same way it has for graphic designers. It's just another tool in the bag to use, enabling devs to write better code, create better apps, either more quickly, with less errors, or with a different skill set, or without having to remember as much.

Programming is the the lowest common denominator of tech jobs. Where the money is really at is software engineering, which often includes programming but is really more about designing software systems. So it may threaten the lower level programming jobs, but actual software engineers are not going anywhere.

Programmers? Quite possibly, yes
Software Developers? No, absolutely not

And most programmers worth their salt would be able to take up a job or at least start becoming software developers themselves.

In the far future, maybe Codex would replace all programmers, but all the programmers that were being replaced took up jobs as Software Developer, Game Developer, Project Manager, and all other high-lever IT jobs.

Projects that were once impossible for one person becomes possible. Regular programmers suddenly has more chance of becoming a software developer or even build their own startups.

Not to mention that positions such as Cloud Engineers are always necessary to maintain any system under the sun.

So yeah, the job programmers might be threatened, but the people in it will prosper.

(Unless, of course, you somehow build a career of being a Programmer without ever learning about the fundamentals of Software Development, in which case... Tough luck baby, natural selection!)

the line of "programming" will move about. we'll need to continue to "specify" until the AI does the specifications. hopefully self-proving.

i give us about 10 years.

I think you will need AGI for most developers to lose their job. Like the average person, management, etc doesn't know what to ask the AI to do to get it to do what they want.

I hope you are right. I've always been a nerd and didn't feel comfortable around "normal" people. I studied CS for years at university only to end up working with the same kind of people that made fun of me in the past. They are here just for the money and studied at a bootcamp, and they are earning the same. I want that people out of the IT world. I'll be happy if they get replaced by AI, regardless if I also get replaced. Then I'll code just for fun as when I was a teenager and meet with people that really loves it.

I think the graphic artist to programmer comparison is not so straightforward. Sure I can see how this version of codex, with all its limitations, seems like what artists ignored a few years ago. But unlike artists it's not easily visible when a mistake is made and not easy at all to correct it if the code is huge through natural language to a dumb AI.

If, however, someone is capable of doing that, they are already very good at coding and the AI will just augment them. Thereby, increasing productivity and fancier software is produced. There is always more tasks, more features to add, more customers to reach so there is unlikely to be a decrease in workforce. Atleast not immediately.

On the other hand, if AI is capable of doing stuff independently it's probably gonna replace a lot more than just programmers and software engineers. It is probably capable of replacing well everybody.

Yes. The point of automation is to reduce the wages bill. I can easily see reduced demand for junior programmers as a result of efficiency gains from codex to existing teams.

It won't speed up the singularity. All techs seem to follow some form of exponential curve with little deviation for good times, bad times or even war. It may increase programmer efficiency, but that could just be required to keep it on the accelerating curve.

People do not understand, what "programmers" do day-to-day, so this kind of question pops up all the time. Most of the time, we don't write these dummy, generic codes that Codex produces. Also, you already don't have to write ton of code yourself, because it's on the github or stackoverflow. Now, when AI starts to understand larger systems and their design, debate tradoffs etc - and starts to make suggestions and implement them, than I will be amazed, even though I know it's coming.

The comparison with artists, is not good one. Codebase that, has thousands (miliions) lines of codes, it interacting with 40 other components etc etc, is not same as image, where you have large room of error. You can literally change one symbol in codebase and it fails or has bug.

Decades eh? I'm probably a little less conservative than that. My feeling is large corporations will take advantage of it it as quickly as possible. It could also have a profound effect on society. I think of it as the industrial revolution, condensed into a week.

But who knows.

On the short term (5 to 10 years) this is pretty much the same feeling I have toward this subject.

I have a feeling the low-skill plentiful careers available now in programming/development are going to disappear. I wouldn't be surprised if it's nearly over night. What company would continue to pay millions of dollars a year for wages when anyone with basic English will be able to do their job? I'm not worried about the higher skilled engineers yet. I'm worried about entry level positions.

Even if those positions don't disappear, I imagine there just won't be many new entry positions, companies will already be over staffed.

I'm saying this as someone that started to learn programming wanting to do a career shift. I was interested it my whole life but went a different direction, and I'm bored and feel at a dead end in my career. I was started learning web development earlier this year but feel like it's a wasted effort. It'd be 2 years before I finish learning enough and trying to land a job, 2 years from now I feel like that job won't exist.

That's pretty much my question. What effect will this have in the near term (<5y) on entry level programming and web development jobs. If that's still a viable career or if the writing is on the wall.

Should anyone aspire to be a web developer anymore? I feel like the answer is no.

But how long would it take to train someone to get the prompts down? Has to be less time than it takes to learn a programming language. It effectively removes the part of learning programming that most entry levels are paid decent salaries for.

I don't think it's a matter of replacing all or most. It's a question of how competitive and unskilled entry level positions become.

I think directly increasing efficiency for programmers has the effect of accelerating everything you say is "on the other hand"

But I'll ask you this:

Say this increases programmers efficiency by 100%. So now 1 programmer is able to get done as much work as 2 programmers. You can say "great, now they can get twice as much work done, so the company will get double the value"

But if that's truly the case, why wouldn't that company, today, just hire more programmers? Is it a matter of cost? So would it not make sense that a company could also have half as many programmers if they do 2x the amount of productivity?

How many programmers do you think will be able to transition into software development? There's a lot of web developers and other lower skill programmers out there. Like tons and tons of them today, I feel like a lot of them won't make the cut transitioning to higher skill programming and engineering.

>It won't speed up the singularity. All techs seem to follow some form of exponential curve

I understand what you mean. But when you zoom in on an exponential curve it's often made up of smaller S curves.

Increasing the efficiency, accuracy, and speed of programming, while reducing the cost should theoretically give a boost to the S curves across different sectors.

The nature of an S curve is it will plateau for a while before accelerating again, a large enough upward S curve near the end of the exponential curve could be a sign of an impending take off.

Sorry this is hard to explain without drawing a diagram.

I feel as though this could be a signal toward much closer transformative AI than expected by most people. Maybe not the singularity yet, but a revolution nonetheless.

>You can literally change one symbol in codebase and it fails or has bug.

But the new Codex checks and corrects itself?

But I know it's not the best comparison, and I understand there's much more to programming than just typing out code. But it's more a question about efficiency of each programmer will in turn require less programmers to get a task completed. I don't think high skill positions are going to be axed quite yet. But entry level positions? I just don't see how they will be as plentiful as they are today.

Even if Codex won't be sufficient today with the current model being released soon. These AI have a track record of starting slow, then getting impressive then mind boggling in a matter of a year, then every few months it's updated and improved.

Again, it doesn't have to be full automation, just enough to replace the majority of entry level positions.

Well what I am saying is that most entry level tech jobs are not programming jobs anyways. They are software engineering or full stack web dev, which is a lot more than just programing. It includes programming, but if programming becomes automated, those jobs don't go away, they just become easier.

The task of a software engineer is to design software. The only thing that changes in the medium term future is the tools used to do so. As the lowest level of software engineering becomes automated, jobs will become easier but software will become more complex as a result and it'll all balance out.

This has been happening ever since the beginning of software, it's just happening faster now. High-level programming langues automated many aspects of low-level programming languages, such as memory management. That didn't kill jobs at all, in fact quite the opposite.

When our current high level languages of today become automated, we'll just have new programming languages with the current ones abstracted away, enabling more complexity and scaling to software. So the jobs will increase due to the increased possibilities.

With all that said, I don't think that the programming of today will become fully automated in 5 years. People here are overly optimistic. I don't think it's a good idea to choose different paths due to potentially very inaccurate estimates from people on Reddit.

I would say the best way to prepare is to not put all your eggs in one basket and to have a flexible mindset. If you want to be a web developer then shoot for being a web developer. Just try to be skilled in other areas of computer science to and just make sure to stay versed with new technology and to constantly update your skills as they start to become outdated.

Who is going to tell it what to code? Managers? lol

Fewer programmers than currently required?

If anything it will just increase programmer productivity. All a programmer is is someone that tells a computer what to do.

Exactly, and it will lower the skill level required to do it, no? So more competition and lower wage?

I'm looking at this from the perspective of entry level, not highly skilled engineer.

>But the new Codex checks and corrects itself?

Only syntactic errors, not functional.

>just enough to replace the majority of entry level positions.

Codex is very far from that. I think, you have wrong idea what juniors do. Even the juniors have understanding of the parts of the system and they cannot be instructed by few sentences. Most of their work, is actually trying to understand, what is wanted from them - which computers are really bad at still.
There are layers of understanding, it will take leaps in AI, before it can easily reason about high level abstractions and implement it in code.
Also, the "programming" is not perfect information game. You have to ask LOT OF questions and debates, before you and the client converge on what they need.
I am sure, it will come, but right now, nobody is using it for real work.

to double their output of pumping out more projects. I'm a programmer and if AI automates most of my routine things, I'll just be capable of handling more things now. and that's always good for the company.

At present there is such a need for coders that it will just make the existing coders more efficient.

I do worry that as these tools become more ubiquitous that many coders will not really understand the code and will have a hard time modifying or debugging it.

Yes but from the company's financial angle, if they can get the same output as today, for half the cost, that's just as much of an option as twice the output at the same cost.

Obviously it isn't that simple of course. But the reasoning can be applied to any ratio. The company might want to keep production levels the same and invest the money elsewhere.

I think by the time the tools become ubiquitous, new and improved tools will be released at an every increasing rate. The end game is eventual full automation, but that could be a long ways away.

Why tho?

>But how long would it take to train someone to get the prompts down?

You're missing what I'm saying by miles. AGI in theory if built right you could say to the program "I want an android app that does x", and that's all the info it needs. Like human coders I wouldn't down you need revisions. So a manger could say, "the client wants x" and it makes the change as if they were talking to a developer.

&#x200B;

On the client or manger side it is more than less the same. Most managers over coders now have no idea about coding.

If it can't be that dead simple, I don't think you will see a wave of coders losing their job due to automation.

Sorry, I know what you're saying. My question was posed as "without AGI" as in between now and whenever AGI becomes a reality, if coding actually writing code from text prompts gets simple enough then anyone could do it.

I really see no reason an AGI would be needed for that, a narrower AI that specializes in text to code would be more than sufficient. You don't need the AI to physically go and meet/discuss with clients.

Maybe we're just in disagreement on the level of AI needed to do enough automation toward programming to cause layoffs in the industry.

>My question was posed as "without AGI" as in between now and whenever AGI becomes a reality, if coding actually writing code from text prompts gets simple enough then anyone could do it.

It won't happen. At least not at first. Like it would be a generational thing. Think of fully remote work. Studies have shown it massively reduce the cost of running a company, the employees are far more productive, the employees are far more loyal, and so on.

What we both are talking about will kill off middle management. Just like what they are doing with remote work, execs and middle management will fight tooth and nail for this to not be a thing.

&#x200B;

Like if it was as simple as you make the tool and people will use it. Then yes. But it has to be so dead simple that it has to spit out an app under a minute or the CEO kid needs to use it and tell their parent about it. OR DAO have to take over (companies ran by software/AI).

i don't know of any non-greedy company that would like to keep the same output they have today. but good point of investing the money elsewhere. anyway, who cares man. i don't even care enough about singularity, it's one of the human constructs like many other. it would be nice to live with a universal income/housing provided though. that's the only thing i care about till i die. after that a zillion more ppl will come to earth, humanity might engineer sentience and move on from our biological body, nuclear fusion will slingshot conscious beings into space, what a tourism industry that would be. no harm from radiation, no need for oxygen.. anyway, that's what i see humanity getting into in maybe 200 years from now.

the only benefit i see that people living today "might" get is a basic income to support bare minimum living, that too in a decade if not two.

The problem is that you're imagining an ideal system where it just 'magically' does exactly what you want. And that's assuming you actually know exactly what you want (newsflash usually people don't). In order to get a computer to do exactly what you want, you need be able to describe it in terms that the computer can understand. That's what programming is at its most fundamental level. "Make a form that looks good" isn't going to cut it. It may generate 10 different forms that aren't exactly what you want or need. At that point you need a specialist who is particularly skilled at describing to AI systems exactly what they want, and getting the exact kind of output required. This kind of specialist is also known as a programmer.

&#x200B;

All of this is completely ignoring the fact that we'll still need people who actually understand whatever output 'programs' these AI systems are generating. No sane company is just going to use a bunch of black-box code that could randomly do something unpredictable or unsafe at any time because no one in the company is actually able to understand the generated code.

&#x200B;

Also, who is creating these AI systems? Programmers!

A more reasonable comparison you could make is to tools like WordPress. Web developers used to be able to make a good living from building/coding simple brochure-style websites from scratch with simple css and html. Now you don't really need to know how to code to make one if you're using something like WordPress or Squarespace. But if you've used either of these (wp in particular...) you'll know that it's anything but simple. And also they are usually extremely limited in what they're actually capable of producing. Oh and guess what - thousands of people (at least) make their entire career extending wordpress and other tools like it. I know several people that have built careers out of using wordpress to create simple websites without ever learning a lick of code.

So no, just because you can get a computer to generate some code, doesn't mean it's necessarily going to make the job easier, or more accessible, or that it will put all programmers out of work. The only thing I think is guaranteed is that the tools programmers use will change -- but this has literally always been the case in this field.

Hmm, I respect your opinion on this, but I do disagree on some of it.

Needing someone "specialized" in inputting English text prompts (very likely voice to text soon with Whisper) is exactly what this tech is conquering.

Different, but only kind of, text to image. You can just be as specific as you want. You can put "a castle on a hill with a dragon" or you can put "a medieval European style castle with flying buttresses extending down from a walkway above a sprawling fortified wooden gate, situated on top of a grassy hill covered in poppies, surrounded by a dark blue watered mote, with a fire breathing dragon that has golden scales shimmering in rays of sunlight peaking through dark billowing storm clouds" and then from there further edit details to get exactly what you want.

With upcoming voice to text, and an assumption on my part, a friendly user interface, I can't see how making the front end of a website exactly how you want. I'm not very familiar with backend stuff so I'll admit I can't speak much to that, and security and such.

I really have no idea, none of us do at this point. But I just imagine whoever is telling the programmer what they want could describe it to the AI just as easily and get next to real time results.

>Also, who is creating these AI systems? Programmers!

I realize this, but that's far from an entry level position that's easily expendable. I'm focused on those that are beginning a career more so than those that are in the industry and highly skilled.

Physical products will never scale as fast as digital ones.

What happens to prices when there is an oversupply. The capital that creates production capacity isn't doing it because their owners are humanitarians, they expect a profit. It takes controlled production and supply to maintain markets. If prices collapse, production will follow, even if that production costs very little. Unless every individual has their own pet AGI, I expect the same forces and dynamics to be in play in society.

This. Any programmer that has used githubs copilot which uses codex knows that we are extremely far away from ai being able to write code by itself. I used the free 3 month trial and it was more of a pain than anything. However, it was really good at writing comments describing what my code did.

Basically, the scale of human civilization, economics and physics.

No wonder you don’t feel comfortable around others, you seem insufferable.

Edit: dude reported me for suicidal thoughts / self harm for my comment