> "The same thing that happened to illustration and art is happening here"

What are you talking about? Illustrators and artists are not being replaced by AI or required to use AI to "keep up" in the vast majority of environments.

> "I don't get the sour opinions."

The reasoning for folks' "sour opinions" has been very well-documented, especially here on HN. This comment reads like people don't like AI because they think it's slow or something, which is not the case.

▲

matkoniecz 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> What are you talking about? Illustrators and artists are not being replaced by AI or required to use AI to "keep up" in the vast majority of environments.

large part of formerly done by humans graphics is now autogenerated

▲

echelon 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> What are you talking about? Illustrators and artists are not being replaced by AI or required to use AI to "keep up" in the vast majority of environments.

I don't know what jobs have been impacted yet, but there will likely be pressure for all content creators and knowledge workers to use the tools to get more work done.

We'll probably start seeing this in software development this year. The tools finally feel ready for prime time.

> This comment reads like people don't like AI because they think it's slow or something, which is not the case.

I am familiar with the most common arguments in opposition - stealing training data, hallucinations, not understanding logic (this is why "engineers in the loop" matters), big corps owning the tech (I really agree with this one), power usage, etc.

It feels as though the downvotes are from people that "dislike AI" for any of the aforementioned reasons. In the face of the possibility of losing jobs to engineers that leverage AI to get more quality work done, however, I don't know why HN engineers downvote anecdotes about real world usage. This is vital to know and understand. I would think one would want more evidence to consider about the state of things.

This is a quickly developing story. Your jobs are or will be on the line.

It doesn't matter what your personal misgivings are if your job will soon require the use of AI. You can hate it all you want, but if people are getting 10x more work done than you, you really don't have a choice.

This will be the same in every career sector with AI models that can be deployed to automate work -- marketing, editing, film, animation, VFX, software, music production, 3D modeling, game design, etc.

I don't think the jobs are going away, but I do think they're going to change. Fast.

No sense in sour grapes.

▲

bloomca 8 hours ago | parent [-]

> I don't know what jobs have been impacted yet, but there will likely be pressure for all content creators and knowledge workers to use the tools to get more work done.

You claimed that it already happened to illustrators and artists, and while I am sure they use it one way or another, I don't think it transformed the industry. Now, I am not saying that it won't amount to anything in software, I just don't think it is ready as of right now outside of greenfield projects, mostly because the scope is limited.

I am pretty positive that at some point we'll have a tool which will automate the generation -> code review -> fixing (multiple loops) -> releasing without people. Currently people are the bottleneck and imo a better way is to exclude people completely outside of initial problem statement and accepting the result. Otherwise it is just too janky, that 10x comes with a huge asterisk that can unironically slow you down after all said and done.

▲

echelon 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I can write, unit test, code review, and QA test new HTTP endpoints in all of 15-30 minutes. It's good code.

I really don't know what else to say.

	▲	bloomca 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think fundamentally this approach is flawed for anything more complex than a simple endpoint. AI is already really good for throwaway code, that is very clear, it is also decent if you watch it like a hawk. However, the complexity is still not handled super well, as you need to spend more time in code review and testing to make sure all edge cases are covered and the general module interconnection is decent. Ideally we want to modularize and make the breaking surface very small, but often it is not possible. I think the next step is to fully remove people as accepting changes manually is just too brittle; I also think it is probably possible to do with the current tools but needs a very different approach from the current meta of highly specific docs.