I hate the term "democratization". It's putting a respectable face on something that shouldn't be respectable at all. In the age of the internet, coding and other creative skills have always been largely democratized to people that care enough to learn. Nothing is being "democratized" by AI, there's simply (an attempt) at driving the value of actual skill to zero so the skill-less and stupid can purchase their way to mediocrity (without the benefit of transferring that money to someone who has worked to be skilled). There is NOTHING "democratic" about that.

▲

brookst 3 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s not coding that’s being democratized, it’s the ability to create games, tools, etc, that require coding.

Suppose it became possible to buy a Ferrari (not that new hideous one) for $5k. That would be democratizing Ferrari ownership: far more people could do it. I’m sure there would be investment bankers who would complain it devalues their hard work (I am not a fan of those people, but it is notoriously long hours). Does that make a $5k Ferrari less of a democratization?

	▲	overgard 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		That's a product, not a skill. We're not talking about people getting cheap cars, we're talking about nobody being able to make a living anymore. And no, this isn't like other revolutions, because there's no "upskilling" into it when it threatens all white collar work. (I'm sorry but I don't think prompting AI is going to be some amazing new profession, it'll be at best a transitory phase). Best case is to buy some durable jeans and learn a trade? Of course, I don't think this is happening any time soon because I don't believe the hype machine. But if you do believe the hype machine, you should be honest about what you're facing. Also, for what it's worth as a person that's written (and will continue to write) games and tools etc., there were already plenty of forces democratizing that (free engines, asset stores with reusable code and art, etc.) The difference was that there was still skill involved, and at the end of the day you were paying another human being for their effort if you bought or used pre-existing components. There's no skill in AI, not really. Also, I'm really not that interested in playing a game created by AI, and judging from the reaction gamers and game developers have had to this technology, I don't think many people are. So, yay, you can make a game that has a tiny audience with zero satisfaction from having done something hard and learned something? Also it's likely going to be extremely derivative, because the AI can only really work with what it's been trained on.
	▲	FarmerPotato 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		They’re letting us test drive the Ferrari while they extract our data. Then they’ll raise the price.
	▲	slopinthebag an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		If that happened, Farrari's would simply lose their value and something more rare would take it's place. The scarcity is the point. Same with art, if you "democratise" it somehow humans will seek out a new form of artistic expression that is not accessible to people with a $10 midjourney subscription. And that is OK, good actually.
	▲	altmanaltman 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Wait a second, you say its not coding thats getting democratized. It is the "ability to create" software... hm i wonder what would be the ability to write software? Maybe something like software engineering? Also your example with Ferrari is completely flawed, and I dont give a fuck about what investment bankers think or do. What are you even talking about here? Please explain the first part more than you hand waved away to make a completely unrelated metaphorical case. What is the ability to create software if not software engineering? How are both different?