I've been using GPT to write very simple utilities in languages I am unfamiliar with, and for me, there's no faster way to pick up a language then to see an example program where you already know exactly what it does.
(Or is supposed to do, finding the small mistakes that GPT sometimes makes also helps learn things, ironically.)
A better one (but one which doesn't leave software engineering): as programming languages have gotten easier to use and tooling has gotten better making programmers more effective, more programmers have been needed to write ever more code despite them all having to expend much less effort if they were to merely do the same things... because, and this is key, the tooling now allowance people to tackle ever more complicated problems leading to new things that can be achieved.
Easier tooling is more like programms like Duolingo and Babbel.
If you totally trust the former you don't need to learn anything, the latter enforces to do something on your own.
And that's where it is a complex analogy for me to use and fix, because I get what you are wanting to point at, and yet it doesn't seem like the relevant thing to measure.
I believe that large language models automatically writing code will result in many more programs existing of much higher complexity and I simply do not see how that is going to result in fewer software developers.
I do believe it will change how we do this job and the level of scale and abstraction we are dealing with, but if you think that the world of post-AI software is going to involve a bunch of people building stuff that looks as simple as it is today in 2023 just without software developers I think you are going to be surprised, as frankly you don't need a software developer at all to build most marketing websites people need--we solved that problem years ago with WYSIWYG tooling--and yet somehow every marketing website is now more complicated than ever before because the goalposts moved.
Imagine when every single thing you interact with is going to be some crazy 3D environment with animated characters providing immersive abuse^Hengagement designed to close the deal. Sure, you could just generate a static website for your project but that's so early 2020s it hurts, right?
And yeah: the team that builds that might be doing a ton of development using AIs but it isn't going to be just "outsource it to the AI" until the AI gets smart enough to replace us entirely and at that point we probably only have a few more years of being alive anyway ;P.
One simple reason: demand. If software developing is more than a hobby you need to get paid, and ChatGPT will be cheaper than entry level programmers, so it will be hard to get entry level jobs and the experience to reach the next level while getting paid.
If the improvement continues, the LLMs can reach a point in skill where they can replace us. Your statement and this article is gambling on the status quo. That humans will always be better then AI.
Why is this causing so much of a ruckus right now? Pretty much everyone knows chatGPT is pretty stupid when compared to a human.
It's causing a ruckus because it's a herald for a possible future where the AI becomes superior to human problem solving.
It's not a unrealistic proposition given that chess AI and go AI has already surpassed us.
Not only that.. your argument in itself is self defeating EVEN if "constrained games" WAS a factor. A machine learning system beat the best human humanity had to offer at a game that is fucking constrained? Literally, the more pathetically simplistic the task the worse Humans perform against an AI. That's the overall logic of your genius argument.
I think one thing is proven by your response. That basically certain people are just not smart or intelligent. You're pretty much below average. This isn't an insult. I'm just pointing out the truth here. I'm sorry but you can't even come up with a coherent argument against the "rantings of a fraudster." Consider measuring your IQ to verify.