[chefandy]

Well, no the point to my comment was that they won't need to be developed, and that the real skill will be in knowing how people interact with things so you can tell the machine what to make, and that is absolutely not a technical job. Even in the interim, incidentally gained technical skills will suffice rendering the technical people in the chain redundant. Surely the human understanding component will be whittled down at some point, too, but it's a much much further goal than automating essentially mechanical processes.

And, of course-- all of the "unpleasant" side effects of massive innovation would be totally avoidable if we didn't treat people as disposable labor units worth nothing more than their market value.

[realharo]

>Surely the human understanding component will be whittled down at some point, too, but it's a much much further goal than automating essentially mechanical processes.

Why do you think that?

People used to think that making paintings and poems would be one of the most difficult things for AI, and look how that turned out.

[gwoolhurme]

I don't think the above comment disagrees that much with you. As far as paintings and poems go those are also pulling off of patterns that humans naturally have given off too right? An LLM is a bit more than a stochastic parrot sure, but it's also a large part of how it functions. The real surprise, or maybe not a surprise, is how formulaic everything is.

[chefandy]

Because interfaces require situation-specific reasoning that purely expressive art can be imitated without. And frankly, I think the slick looking images that AI spews out from actual artists' munged up work is a far cry from being equivalent. Like interfaces, the people who wouldn't pay an artist or designer to begin with probably don't care enough about the quality of the art or interface for it to matter. Cookie cutter applications and stock images are going to suffer, but developers making basic crud functionality or simple API interactions will suffer soon after.