Neuroscience has basically no relationship to machine learning at this point (Neural networks are just """inspired"""^(TM) by neuroscience) so I wouldn't trust anyone but an AI specialist.

That's a naive view that doesn't take into consideration the second order effects. In 5-10 years companies will have to compete with more advanced products that use AI, a lot of that new found AI productivity will be spent to level off with the competition instead of raking in absurd profits. And lowering prices will help consumers.

Of course it’s a huge unknown right now how all this will settle out, but it’s also worth remembering that computers were supposedly going to reduce the need for people, but it just upped expectations of productivity. Something similar will happen here. Certainly some jobs will be less valuable, and likely some skills will be more valuable, such as the ability to effectively direct AI tools to a desired result. And then some entirely new roles will come into existence.

>Less than 5% of a programmers time is spent physically writing code

Not sure where you work at, but I am a principal SDE with 16 YoE and even though I spend most of my time in meetings, helping more junior team members or just on communication in general I try to shoot for 40-50% of my time actually writing code and Copilot does help with that (I'd say maybe 20% productivity increase). Even our dev manager probably spends more than 5% of his time writing actual code (but most dev managers don't of course).

As a non-programmer, i tried asking it to change one small addition to an indicator in tradingview and i had to keep giving it the errors i got and did additional searches on google until i figured it out. At the end, all i changed was just two lines of code and it took me a long time.

Basically, what i mean is that the person giving the prompts already needs to have some programming knowledge to get help.

Even if it becomes more advanced, i bet you'd need workers to know how to give it prompts (or have unique ai prompters as a new position) to get the best outcome.

I think it's true for ai art. I see great ai art online but when i do it, it usually comes out far worse. It's when i realize that if they are going to replace some lower level cheap artist, they'd still need some ai art prompter to know what keywords to give it and what filter to use to get the best art, and you'd also probably need some other person to actually sort through the outputs to see which best fits their needs.

For those basic stock pictures, it doesn't really change much. Imagine if an outlets is rushing out articles, and they write one on how drinking water is healthy and they need an imagine of a woman drinking water. Seems cheaper and easier to just choose one with their stock images subscription.

And if they need something really unique and special for a main product, they can't just let some middle manager type a prompt and use that. They have to call the prompt guy (or maybe more realistically, they'll outsource it to an ai generator company who has humans that receive what the company needs, they then do the promoting, choosing the best, and editing it to provide them the image that fits their needs.

Basically, for every job they do away with, they'll just create a new human need.

[deleted]

[deleted]