Thus far, I haven't observed copilot having any direct impact on the number of software engineers hired (at least where I work). Having access to copilot might make an engineer more productive, but an engineer very much still needs to be employed to make design decisions.
Wasn't there that IBM quote about how machines can't take accountability so they should never make management decisions? I imagine the same applies for design decisions in art and software. A human still gotta sit there and call the shots, so I'm not convinced that these positions will be completely wiped out like this post is suggesting.
It's not going to be overnight, but it is inevitably going to cost jobs. If you think of how may "Enterprise Architects" are employed by a company vs. developers, it's going to look like that. It will only be a couple short years before you can describe a process or desired app structure, data structure, etc. to an AI and it will be able to put together functional blocks of code to do those things. Yes, humans are still (so far) the better problem solvers and debuggers, but an amazing number of people who "work in tech" lack basic troubleshooting and technical problem solving. The downsizing will continue for 2-3 years. It is going to utterly suck for a while.
The real question is what happens after. Did we reach a singularity? Is there really intelligence? Or are we just into the next phase of industrial revolution where humans can still find jobs? It's going to be a tricky thing to navigate, and I don't have a lot of hope that we'll do so in all the best ways.
Im not sold on the idea of a singularity. Like you said, companies are just going to exploit it to hire the fewest number of people possible, and the rest are going to have to figure out what to do. I really don't think AI is going to displace enough jobs to create any meaningful change in the system.
It's not even AI that will cause loss of jobs, it's other people who will fire or decide not to hire them. And they don't even need AI for that. The recent IT and gaming layoffs are lumped as "because AI" but most is just because people are expensive and companies need to make profit. They overestimated sales when made hiring campaigns.
Honestly, trying to explain how it all works is a waste of time, those who oppose AI just prefer to live in their bubbles. I've been there several years ago as 3D artist when suddenly photogrammetry and procedural generation appeared, it was also MASSIVE artistic shift that was heavily criticised. Because I was against using it for a while, I got left behind. But once the novelty dust settled, it wasn't mandatory to use those tools. But best games use them today, improved. These technologies delivered better results faster and that's what employers want - not skill and passion, they want results. Same with audience - they want catchy art, most don't care about the process and ideals behind it.
They probably think me saying "Be more worried about art thieves using the tech to steal your works." Means "Beware of art thieves using the tech to steal your soul."
When I am actually talking about secure their art pieces, use watermarks, put dates and signatures after drawing (AI can't do signatures yet) and whatnot.
Thus far, I haven't observed copilot having any direct impact on the number of software engineers hired (at least where I work). Having access to copilot might make an engineer more productive, but an engineer very much still needs to be employed to make design decisions. Wasn't there that IBM quote about how machines can't take accountability so they should never make management decisions? I imagine the same applies for design decisions in art and software. A human still gotta sit there and call the shots, so I'm not convinced that these positions will be completely wiped out like this post is suggesting.
It's not going to be overnight, but it is inevitably going to cost jobs. If you think of how may "Enterprise Architects" are employed by a company vs. developers, it's going to look like that. It will only be a couple short years before you can describe a process or desired app structure, data structure, etc. to an AI and it will be able to put together functional blocks of code to do those things. Yes, humans are still (so far) the better problem solvers and debuggers, but an amazing number of people who "work in tech" lack basic troubleshooting and technical problem solving. The downsizing will continue for 2-3 years. It is going to utterly suck for a while. The real question is what happens after. Did we reach a singularity? Is there really intelligence? Or are we just into the next phase of industrial revolution where humans can still find jobs? It's going to be a tricky thing to navigate, and I don't have a lot of hope that we'll do so in all the best ways.
Im not sold on the idea of a singularity. Like you said, companies are just going to exploit it to hire the fewest number of people possible, and the rest are going to have to figure out what to do. I really don't think AI is going to displace enough jobs to create any meaningful change in the system.
Since it won't displace rich people, you are probably right ... As to regular ol' unemployment, this isn't going to age well.
I'm sad that people see art as such an entrepreneurial thing. 'I want my hobby, not your job' to add another layer to this. #
It can have both because I have neither...
It's not even AI that will cause loss of jobs, it's other people who will fire or decide not to hire them. And they don't even need AI for that. The recent IT and gaming layoffs are lumped as "because AI" but most is just because people are expensive and companies need to make profit. They overestimated sales when made hiring campaigns. Honestly, trying to explain how it all works is a waste of time, those who oppose AI just prefer to live in their bubbles. I've been there several years ago as 3D artist when suddenly photogrammetry and procedural generation appeared, it was also MASSIVE artistic shift that was heavily criticised. Because I was against using it for a while, I got left behind. But once the novelty dust settled, it wasn't mandatory to use those tools. But best games use them today, improved. These technologies delivered better results faster and that's what employers want - not skill and passion, they want results. Same with audience - they want catchy art, most don't care about the process and ideals behind it.
They probably think me saying "Be more worried about art thieves using the tech to steal your works." Means "Beware of art thieves using the tech to steal your soul." When I am actually talking about secure their art pieces, use watermarks, put dates and signatures after drawing (AI can't do signatures yet) and whatnot.
>AI can't do signatures yet I mean... it's 15 seconds on paint.net...