> And we’re saddened that the new process results in lower quality work, and that a lot of people just don’t seem to care.

1. Arguments like this seem to be based on the idea that, prior to AI, most of this type of work was being done by skilled artisans dedicated to quality work product. As I think anyone who actually worked in the industry and is being honest knows, this wasn't the case. There was a lot of mediocrity and worse.

2. I'm not sure the work is "lower quality" depending on how you define "quality". AI might result in an uncomfortable uniformity but at the same time, a lot of AI work product is pretty darn usable because the models have been trained against conventions that, love them or hate them, "work" for the vast majority of end users.

▲

everdrive 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

>1. Arguments like this seem to be based on the idea that, prior to AI, most of this type of work was being done by skilled artisans dedicated to quality work product. As I think anyone who actually worked in the industry and is being honest knows, this wasn't the case.

I think this is more of "another brick in the wall." There was already a LOT of pressure to do the bare minimum to fulfill requirements and then declare success. Now, those pressures seem insurmountable.

	▲	ElProlactin 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		If your requirements are reasonable and serve the needs of end users and the business, doing "the bare minimum" isn't such a bad thing. "I just remove everything that is not David." Of course, the requirements aren't always right, but in my experience, engineers/developers are just as capable as business owners of defining requirements poorly.

▲

francisofascii 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> the idea that, prior to AI, most of this type of work was being done by skilled artisans dedicated to quality work product

Some of us were lucky to have a few periods in our career where this was the case. I would agree that this disappeared prior to AI.