[tvural]

> "AI's don't need to learn to code any more than they need to learn to use photoshop. They need to learn to provide functionality (or in this case manipulate image data)."

This is interesting. My counterpoint would be that if you rely on AI over programs you lose human-editability and determinism. So fixing a bug or adding a new feature might mean diving into some opaque model rather than adding a few lines of code. You couldn't do anything where consistency is important, like security, manipulating a database with important information, or GUI design. I think that at least protects large swaths of software development.

Even this example seems less like a replacement for Photoshop and more like a cool new feature Photoshop could add

[nneonneo]

In the real world we rely on humans for lots of stuff, and humans aren't actually deterministic either. Sure, if you train someone to perform a task they'll probably do a good job, or they might suddenly come into work distracted and cause a problem. Diagnosing problems with people is often similarly hard, and we've had all of civilization to work on it.

This hasn't caused the sky to fall, yet. So, perhaps we'll just learn to make AI behave properly under most circumstances, and deal with failures and glitches as we always have with people.