[grugagag]

> For every person who gets to make creative decision, there are hundreds upon hundreds of people whose sole purpose is slavish adherence to those decisions.

Yes but at least those decisions come from some or one person not just an algorirhm

[lubujackson]

As an engineer and artist, I think a better comparison is painting -> photography. It took quite a while for photography to be considered an art, since it removed so much of the creative control from the artist. But it replaced them with new and different skills, particularly the value of curation.

Some skills, like framing, values, balance, etc. become even more important differentiators. Yes, it is much different. But as long as humans are in the loop, there is an opportunity for human communication.

[alickz]

>Some skills, like framing, values, balance, etc. become even more important differentiators.

I agree. I think many artists in the future will be closer to directors/cinematographers/editors than performers

Many of the skills artists have today will still be necessary and transferable, but what will separate the good artists from the bad artists will be their ability to communicate their ideas to agents / other humans

Same with software developers I suspect - communication will be the most important skill of all, and the rockstar loner devs who don't work well in teams will slowly phase out

[efskap]

As a software engineer you still make the hard decisions and let claude type them out for you. Isn't it similar?

[legitster]

I mean, yeah. No matter how you feel about AI and creativity, having AI make the creative choices is dumb and backwards.