[oldstrangers]

I made the case that anyone that solves problems with objectively correct solutions (programmers) would always be more at risk of AI taking their jobs than people that solve problems with subjectively correct solutions (artists, some designers).

[hot_gril]

Programmers' solutions aren't all objective, or at least shouldn't be. Simple tasks are. In some cases people are using overly low-level tooling, creating a lot of repetitive work that the AI would do better, and they might be at risk.

[oldstrangers]

Objectively correct in the sense that we need 2+2 to equal 4 and we don't care how you got there kind of objectively correct.

Whereas an artist might need 2+2 to equal apple, and we can only subjectively solve for why or how.

[hot_gril]

End-user-facing software is apparently close to art. You're trying to solve a human problem and make it pretty. But even deep backend stuff is largely designed and built around how people understand tasks.

I do look forward to ChatGPT telling me why my C++ code won't link, though.

[thrown123098]

I remember the exact opposite case being made 3 months ago. That art just needs to be good enough and all artists will starve. You need a human to be responsible for a piece if software to sue and imprison when it goes off the deep end if nothing else. Programmers aren't going anywhere.