> Personally I'm trying my hardest to adjust, as I don't want AI to "happen" to me, by learning the skills that I can only predict will be important.

Since you're so certain of this impact "AI" will have, what "skills" do you "predict" are required on the human end of this?

I have to admit that's a rhetorical question to demonstrate the absurdity of your stance. Don't make my eyes roll out of my head by insisting that "AI is indeed an absurd change, but we must acknowledge... (blah blah)" or whatever and double down.

We've had years of these silly takes and we're all fed up with the mass-plagiarism machine. It's not science fiction. It's a big lookup table for sale and wrapped in lies, and no it's not equivalent to other computation by definition. I'm sure you could run some people out of business that way, but not all. When the job is done did we really achieve "AI", or just ruin the economy by taking advantage of the feeble minded?

Any politician has a massive opportunity here to enforce the law. It's only a question if they'll keep pretending to be blinded by the science.

▲

aleph_minus_one an hour ago | parent [-]

> Since you're so certain of this impact "AI" will have, what "skills" do you "predict" are required on the human end of this?

Not Flere-Imsaho:

I think if one made a serious effort, one could easily find a well-founded answer to this question that is based on a solid rational foundation.

The problem rather is: people (often in decision positions, but also employees who fear for their jobs) don't act rationally on AI:

- For example, managers firing good programmers because programmers are to be replaced by AI. By now you can find many reports of companies who try to convince their programmers that they fired "because of AI" to come back.

- Similarly, panicking employees who demand irrational restrictions on AI.

These very non-rational factors and irrational actions are very hard to predict.

	▲	sublinear an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> Similarly, panicking employees who demand irrational restrictions on AI. What is so irrational about avoiding AI altogether? If the dev gets the same or higher quality work done in the same amount of time without it (oh, yes they can/do) what is the risk? What kind of sweatshop has such a bottleneck with dev time that they require AI? If the dev is micromanaged to the extent that they are told which tools to use, that's something else already. Let's meet in the middle and say most devs, regardless of the extremity of their stance on AI, probably at least read Google AI summaries and copy-paste that code from time to time. I've never heard of anyone complaining about that. Brother, let me tell you that's 99% of the productivity boost we're gonna see until this upcoming AI winter is over again. Anyone who thinks otherwise is delusional.