The first profession AI seems on track to decimate is programming. In particular, the brilliant but remote and individual contributor. There is an obvious conflict of interest in this forum.
If you think we are close to the maximum useful software in the world already, then maybe. I do not believe that. Seeing software production and time costs drop one to two orders of magnitude means we will have very different viable software production processes. I don’t believe for a second that it disenfranchises quality thinkers; it empowers them.
Reduce costs by an order of magnitude or two, and suddenly there's a whole heap more projects that become profitable.
30 years after I gave up the Rollei, I'm not obsolete as a photographer, and when there's a quality diffusion model that could take a few of my photos from the event at 100 megapixels, and get prompted by me as to what I want to see out of them creatively, I will still not be obsolete, even as a photographer, but most certainly not obsolete as an artist. In fact, I'll have more tools available for my art, with new skills needed, and different workflows.
As to abandoning 3D art -- your call. If you love it, why not see how these new tools open up your art? If you don't love some of the new tools, no problem, don't use them. I still shoot medium format film some times. If you were planning on a long term creative career without staying on top of technical advances in your field, that has not been possible for at least a few centuries.
Are legitimate companies genuinely switching to Midjourney over hiring artists now, or is Midjourney usage still mostly happening in places that previously wouldn't have commissioned custom illustrations at all (instead using things like stock photography)?
There're hundreds of thousands of '3D worker' working behind the scene to create the 3D models for makeshift ads, and as far as I know many of them (including my high school mate) already got displaced by Midjourney and lost their job. This used to be a big industry but now almost entirely wiped out by AI.
To my knowledge, 3D artists weren't that huge of an industry to begin with. One of my friends went to college researching 3D physics models, and never landed a job in the field long before the AI wave hit. Unless you're a freelancer or salaried Pixar employee, being a 3D artist is extremely difficult with extraordinarily low job security, AI or no AI.
I think "almost entirely wiped out by AI" is hyperbole, because the primary employer of these artists will still be hiring and products like Sora are a good decade away from being Toy Story quality. AI will be a substitute product for people that didn't even want 3D art in the first place.
So far, there is little chance of a non-technical person developing a technical solution to their problems using AI.
Nope. Compensation is exponential. Being able to replace a top performer with a fee mediocre devs pair coding with an LLM is more than fine for 90% of use cases.
I think it is more likely that great programmers might just increase their productivity even more with, which will make their value even greater.
Sure. Plenty of businesses are. Particularly in the commercial automation sector that numerically hires the most people.
> more likely that great programmers might just increase their productivity
For those in high-productivity, high-margin businesses, yes. For most of the world, no—the surplus productivity doesn’t outweigh the compensation and concentration risk.
I broadly expect a spate of age discrimination lawsuits in the near future because most businesses don’t need a few stars. In the meantime, I’ve watched a lot of people find two people in Brazil + an LLM equals one WFH very good (but not brilliant) coder.
These people will continue to have value. But most businesses don’t have problems that can be profitable solved only by brilliant coders.
Commercially, you can. After all, that's the current music business.
If a top performer can produce 5x or more of the value, I would expect companies to continue to value top performers.
The developers who will find LLMs the least useful are the "brilliant" ones who never found any utility in any of that stuff, partly because they are not reinventing the wheel for the 1000th time, but instead addressing more challenging and novel problems.
LLMs free me from the nuts and bolts of the "how", for example I don't have to manually type out a loop. I just write a comment and the loop magically appears. Sometimes I don't have to prompt it at all.
With my brain freed from the drudgery of everyday programming, I have more mental cycles to dedicate to higher concerns such as overall architecture, and I'm just way more productive.
For experienced programmers this is a godsend.
Less experienced developers lack the ability to mentally "see" how software should be architected in a way that balances the concerns, so writing a loop a bit faster it's not as much of an advantage. Also, they lack the reflexes to instantly decide if generated code is correct or incorrect.
LLMs are limited by the user's decision speed, the LLM generates code for you but you have to decide whether to accept or reject. If it takes me 1 second to decide to accept code that would have taken me 10 seconds to physically type, then I'm saving 9 seconds, which really adds up. For a junior developer, LLMs may give negative productivity if it takes them longer to decide if the LLM's version is correct than it would have taken them to type whatever they were going to write in the first place.
This is obviously the critical point. It's not whether the LLM can do something, i.e. give it a go, but whether that actually saves you time. If it takes longer to verify the LLM code for correctness than to write it yourself, then there is no productivity gain.
I guess this partly also hinges on how much you care about correctness beyond "does it seem to work". For a prototype maybe that's enough, but for work use you probably should check for API "contractual correctness", corner cases, vulnerabilities, etc, or anything that you didn't explicitly specify (or even if you did!) to the LLM. If you are writing the code itself then these multifaceted requirements are all in your head, but with the LLM you'll need to spell them all out (or iterate and refine), and it may well have been faster just to code it yourself (cf working with an intern with -ve productivity).
If you fail to review the LLMs code thoroughly enough, and leave bugs in it to be discovered later, maybe in production, then the cost of doing that, both in time and money, will far outweigh any cost saving in just having written it correctly yourself in the first place. Again, this is more of a concern for production code than for hobbyist or prototype stuff, but having to fix bugs is always slower than getting it right in the first place.
For myself, it seems that for anything complex it's always the design that takes time, not the coding, and the coding in the end (once the detailed design has been worked out) just comes down to straightforward methods and functions that are mostly simple to get right first time. What would be useful, but of course does not yet exist, would be an AGI peer programmer that operated more like a human than a language model, who I could discuss the requirements and design with, and then maybe delegate the coding to as well.
Notes: https://simonwillison.net/tags/ai-assisted-programming/
In law, this sort of thing already happened with the rise of better research tools. The work L1s used to do a generation ago just does not exist now. An attorney with experience gets the results faster on their own now. With all the pipeline and QoL issues that go with that.
Note though that not all companies see it this way - the telecom I work at is hoping to replace senior onshore developers with junior offshore ones leveraging "GenAI"! I agree that the opposite makes more sense - the seniors are needed, and it's the juniors whose work may be more within reach of LLMs.
I really can't see junior developer positions wholesale disappearing though - more likely them just leveraging LLM/AI-enhanced dev tools to be more productive. Maybe in some companies where there are lots of junior developers they may (due to increased productivity) need fewer in the future, but the productivity gains to be had at this point seem questionable ... as another poster commented, the output of an LLM is only as useful as the skill of the person reviewing it for correctness.
I find a lot of the AI discussion seems to land in the "lump of labor" fallacy camp though.
But not all younger programmers can be Stack Overflow cut-n-pasters, because not all (and surely not 95%!) programming jobs are amenable to that approach. There are lots of jobs where people are developing novel solutions, interacting with proprietary or uncommon hardware and software, etc, where the solution does not exist on Stack Overflow (and by extension not in an LLM trained on Stack Overflow).
AI just destroyed shutterstock.
https://www.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/12ff5mw/i...
https://www.reddit.com/r/freelanceWriters/comments/17zms9f/w...
> "It pretty much has killed most small jobs in writing."
> "entry-level writing jobs have ceased to exist."
... There isn't an infinite amount of demand for commodity writing/art/music/vfx, and AI inference is pretty cheap and rapidly getting cheaper.
Not pretty, but it gets the job done for the specific use cases of a given business.
Real production code doesn’t and have a shutter stock equivalent.
If you think most code is stock, then you just haven’t had enough experience in industry yet.
Just another tool in the kit.
What it may do is change the job requrements. Web/JS has decimated (reduced by 90% or more) MFC C++ jobs after all.
The programmer doesnt just write Python. That is the how... not the what.
Once ChatGPT can even come close to replacing a junior engineer, you can retry your claim. The progression of the tech underlying ChatGPT will be sub-linear.