Even the most naive takes I see here (it's no different than you reading public code = "the AI should be treated the same as a human") will be forced to re-evaluate their position once they become unemployable because of these AIs.
Edit: actually I take that back. I think a team that previously needed 3 developers might get away with only 1 or 2 developers thanks to improved productivity from copilot. So it can replace jobs in that way. Dalle can make a team that has one designer go to 0 designers.
In 3-4 years - maybe, but not now.
That being said, luddism was a thing for obvious reasons and it's not clear to me that we will be able to create any jobs at all post automation with this type of AI models. At the very least what will happen is that human intelligence will be devalued significantly in the job market.
Vox hosted a fantastic discussion with artists after showing them Dalle, and their thoughts on how it'll affect their jobs are very interesting! Would highly recommend. https://youtu.be/sFBfrZ-N3G4 it notes a few times in history when people have thought a technology would dangerously displace jobs (eg photography replacing painters), but that in general new, unforseen jobs appear.
I know some argue that UBI is the natural conclusion of AI replacing more jobs. Or jobs shifting to be more coordinating the AI (the Vox video uses the term "prompt engineering" to describe this a bit). It's definitely an open question! But I'm honestly a little excited (and nervous!) to see where it goes. It could have realty positive impacts on humanity if we're careful! I think these tools could allow a certain level of individual productivity that would allow people to achieve more of their goals in our limited lifetimes :) But the future is murky and not guaranteed.
UBI is not the natural consequence of automation increasing the value of automation and reducing the relative value of all other labor, sharply increasing inequality and with extraordinary concentrated wealth and increasingly broad poverty is.
UBI is a potential intervention to mitigate that natural consequence, though.
Automation tools shift demand from the job automated to the jobs producing the automation tools.
That's why all other automation shifts demand to programming. Automation of programming, though, just shifts the demand within programming to a higher level of abstraction.
It is the same as what happened with digital photography. In the old days every single publication, no matter how local or modest, that wanted to have a photo to accompany the text needed a photographer. With the invention of digital photography and smartphones, this is no longer the case. Any writer or editor can snap a picture themselves and often it even looks kind of ok.
However, for a real "professional" look and and quality, you still need a skilled expert to take care of the imagery. Because part of providing the image are the mechanics of producing one, but another part is knowing/deciding what the right image is for this occasion. The latter part can only be done by humans for the foreseeable future.
The result is that it is much easier to acquire some picture for you publication, but also there there still is a need for professionals that can do it "proper".
Is this actually happening? Some years ago there were articles about neural networks which can find errors/interesting points in law documents or find tumors during cancer imaging, but did this actually replace any jobs instead of just being an additional tool?