[aDyslecticCrow]

LLMs are not good enough to replace programmers, authors or journalists (and I suspect never will, since they still rely on accurate and human written sources to produce anything of value)

However, AI art generators in their current form may render all artistic jobs unlivable within 20 years. Learning to draw is one of the most time-intensive skills to master. A master's degree in CS is sufficient to secure a good job, but five years of experience in art makes you a "novice". AI art is just good enough to devalue art as a whole, making it an infeasible profession to pursue, as it's already near the minimum wage on average.

In 20 years, there may not be any new professional digital artists. All art will become AI art. Do we like that world? Cheap, corporate, lazy, with no sign of effort or dedication.

I want LLMS to go away as well, but at the very least, there will always be a market for real text, and always be people able to produce it.

[gls2ro]

Isnt this maybe a bias?

Developers saying LLMs are not good enough to replace programmers but can replace artists.

An artist can say the same: LLMs are not good enough to replace artists but they seem good enough to replace programmers.

[thiht]

That’s both true and false. AI can definitely replace the "realization" part of art in some cases, not the "creativity/thinking" part. I’d AI art good? Sometimes, sometimes not. Is it good enough when you just want an illustration, with images serving no artistic purpose? Often yes. AI can also definitely replace part of the "writing code" bits. Can it replace all of it? No, some parts are still too complex for AI to grasp. Is it good enough for MVPs, throwing projects in the wild and see if they work? Of course yes.