[brookst]

It’s not coding that’s being democratized, it’s the ability to create games, tools, etc, that require coding.

Suppose it became possible to buy a Ferrari (not that new hideous one) for $5k. That would be democratizing Ferrari ownership: far more people could do it. I’m sure there would be investment bankers who would complain it devalues their hard work (I am not a fan of those people, but it is notoriously long hours). Does that make a $5k Ferrari less of a democratization?

[slopinthebag]

If that happened, Farrari's would simply lose their value and something more rare would take it's place. The scarcity is the point. Same with art, if you "democratise" it somehow humans will seek out a new form of artistic expression that is not accessible to people with a $10 midjourney subscription. And that is OK, good actually.

[brookst]

Perhaps to some degree, but there is intrinsic value to a Ferrari if you enjoy driving. That doesn’t change with scarcity.

But I agree, and even celebrate, that a hypothetical future with abundance will be bad for speculators and the luxury-obsessed, and great for people who enjoy the first-order benefits of products.

[FarmerPotato]

They’re letting us test drive the Ferrari while they extract our data.

Then they’ll raise the price.

[overgard]

That's a product, not a skill. We're not talking about people getting cheap cars, we're talking about nobody being able to make a living anymore. And no, this isn't like other revolutions, because there's no "upskilling" into it when it threatens all white collar work. (I'm sorry but I don't think prompting AI is going to be some amazing new profession, it'll be at best a transitory phase). Best case is to buy some durable jeans and learn a trade?

Of course, I don't think this is happening any time soon because I don't believe the hype machine. But if you do believe the hype machine, you should be honest about what you're facing.

Also, for what it's worth as a person that's written (and will continue to write) games and tools etc., there were already plenty of forces democratizing that (free engines, asset stores with reusable code and art, etc.) The difference was that there was still skill involved, and at the end of the day you were paying another human being for their effort if you bought or used pre-existing components. There's no skill in AI, not really.

Also, I'm really not that interested in playing a game created by AI, and judging from the reaction gamers and game developers have had to this technology, I don't think many people are. So, yay, you can make a game that has a tiny audience with zero satisfaction from having done something hard and learned something? Also it's likely going to be extremely derivative, because the AI can only really work with what it's been trained on.

[altmanaltman]

Wait a second, you say its not coding thats getting democratized. It is the "ability to create" software... hm i wonder what would be the ability to write software? Maybe something like software engineering?

Also your example with Ferrari is completely flawed, and I dont give a fuck about what investment bankers think or do. What are you even talking about here?

Please explain the first part more than you hand waved away to make a completely unrelated metaphorical case. What is the ability to create software if not software engineering? How are both different?

[brookst]

The whole point of AI coding is (partial) decoupling of software from human coding.

You might as well ask what the ability is to create arbitrary images to any specification, if not painting? But AI image gen is not painting.

It’s painful and confusing to those who’ve mistaken the tool for the product. Why, you ordered that pizza for delivery, that’s not cooking! No, but it is eating.

Same thing with software. Some people just want the outcome, not the process, and it’s pointless to whinge about how it’s somehow less legitimate.

[fastforwardius]

You can make coffee by brewing it or by using Nespresso.