[evilai]

And also much cheaper, which I think is one of the main problems. If less knowledge is needed to solve these problems, then you should pay less for them. The article makes a comparison with chess, which seems absurd to me, because, although there are more people playing chess than ever before, this is due, in my opinion, to the fact that the goal continues to be to defeat another human playing, so even though it is impossible to beat a machine at the game, it does not affect the gameplay with other humans. On the other hand, coding is a job for many, what sense would it make to pay, or pay the same to a human, if a program can produce higher quality code?