[dntrkv]

I don't think anyone is in denial about this, it's just not something anyone should concern themselves with in the foreseeable future. AI that can replace a dev or designer is nowhere close to becoming a reality. Just because we have some cool demos that show some impressive capabilities in a narrow application does not mean we can extrapolate that capability to something that is many times more complex.

[jug]

I agree. It bears repeating: Where modern AI shines is where it does not matter to be precise, where programming absolutely _depends_ on being precise.

So, today some good AI applications are face detection, fingerprint detection, or generating art. Where you need to catch or generate the general gist of it without pixel precision.

Of course, programming might be under greater threat than we imagine. I can also not claim that anyone holding that position is just plain _wrong_. But I do believe that would take an AI breakthrough that is yet to happen. That breakthrough would also have absolutely crazy consequences beyond programming, because now we would have "exact AI" and the thought of that boggles my mind for sure.

[0F]

I strongly and emphatically disagree. You frame it like we invented these AIs. Did we write the algorithms that actually run when it’s producing its output? Of course not, we can’t understand them let alone write them. We just sift around until we find them. So obviously the situations lends its self to surprises. Every other year we get surprised by things that all the “experts” said was 50 years off or impossible, have you forgotten already?

[btmiller]

This comment settles it for me. You’re thoroughly way too hyperbolic in your assessment. If this was closer to reality you’d have been able to state your case in clear, realistic terms. That’s something no one has been able to do so far.

[astrange]

I do deny it. Automation does not destroy jobs even if you're impressed at how good it is at painting; see "Luddite fallacy" and "lump of labor".

Claiming AIs are going to take over or destroy the world has been a basis of "AI safety" research since the 90s, but that isn't real research, it's a new religion run by Berkeley rationalists who read too many SF novels.

[atleta]

The assumption that automation creates (or at least does not destroy) jobs is an extrapolation from the past despite the fact that the nature of automation is constantly changing/evolving.

Also, one thing that everyone seems to ignore is that even if the number of jobs are not reduced, the skill/talent level for doing those jobs may (actually DO) increase and also, switching careers does not work for everyone. So you'll inevitably have people without a job even if it's just that the job market is shifting.

But I argue that as automation reaches jobs with higher levels of sophistication, i.e. the jobs of more skilled workers, some people will simply be left out because of their talent won't be enough to do any job that has not been automated.

[hackinthebochs]

What does nowhere close mean to you? 10 years? 50 years?